Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 17 November.

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 17 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Assembly

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to seek to amend the Northern Ireland Act 1982 to enable the Assembly to play a more effective role in the government of the Province.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is proposing any new political initiatives for Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): The essential requirement remains agreement between the elected representatives of both sides of the community, and I do not see that amendment of the Northern Ireland Act 1982 would produce that agreement.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unless he amends the Act it will not come into effect as was originally intended and that, in those terms, the Northern Ireland Assembly cannot advance? If that is his present position and the one that he intends to maintain, what measures does he intend to introduce in the House to improve government in Northern Ireland and to remove some of the difficulties that he saw during the passage of the legislation last year?

Mr. Prior: Government in Northern Ireland has improved because of the Assembly. I should like to see a

greater improvement in Northern Ireland by an advance to devolved government. That is not possible unless both sides of the community are prepared to take part. I do not believe that government in Northern Ireland would work if we amended the Act to enable one side to have power without the agreement of the other. Until that exists, we must pursue phase 1 of the Assembly as it is and proceed with generally improving government in Northern Ireland, which I believe most people agree is better than it was.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Secretary of State agree that basing so many hopes on the Assembly is excessively optimistic and that the real problems facing Northern Ireland require a much more radical solution? Will he look sympathetically at the outcome of the discussions centring on the forum in Dublin as a possible basis for a different and more hopeful departure?

Mr. Prior: It would always be wrong to be too optimistic about any scheme in Northern Ireland. If other schemes and solutions come forward, they will be properly and fully considered. The Government do not lack the will to achieve peace in Northern Ireland. We shall carefully study the extent to which the forum that is operating in the South is likely to produce any solutions designed to help us to achieve a settlement.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government's main problem in creating a devolved Government in Northern Ireland has been the formation of the Executive? Is it not proper for the Government now to consider, as an interim step, more law-making powers for the Assembly?

Mr. Prior: The main stumbling block towards progress in Northern Ireland has been the lack of will by the Unionist parties to attract the Social Democratic and Labour party to become a member of, and to play its part in, the Assembly, and also by the SDLP to sit in the Assembly and participate. That is the real problem, and I do not believe that it would be solved by trying to move towards legislative control separated from executive control.

Mr. John David Taylor: The Secretary of State spoke of having both communities in the Assembly. Will he confirm that Catholics are participating already, and that he is talking not about Catholics and Protestants but about supporters of a united Ireland?

Mr. Prior: I am talking about the representatives of the minority communities who seek nationalism through constitutional means. I acknowledge that there are six Catholics already in the Assembly who belong to the Alliance party. I hope that Unionists will accept that that does not constitute widespread acceptance of the Assembly throughout the community.

Mr. Budgen: What can the Unionist parties do, consistent with their views, to attract the SDLP into the Assembly?

Mr. Prior: They could recognise that there must be a greater willingness by all the people of Northern. Ireland — regardless of whether they are Unionists or Nationalists, Protestant or Catholic—to accept that the problems of greater peace and security there will not be solved until they come together to work in government and support the forces of law and order. That is what it is all about.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that any proposals emanating from the forum should be seriously considered? Some people fear the implications of the Prime Minister's statement on Tuesday. Have not leading politicians in the South in recent months at least recognised the Protestant position in the North, which gives some hope for the future?

Mr. Prior: I agree that there has been greater recognition in the South of the proper position of the Unionists, which is helpful. But that will have to go some way further if it is to reassure Unionists about their right to remain members of the United Kingdom. We shall keep an open mind on anything emanating from the forum.

Mr. Archer: Could the right hon. Gentleman display a little more enthusiasm for the forum? While I appreciate that the Government cannot commit themselves in advance of any reports, will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake to urge upon his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that when they emerge the House should be given an early opportunity to debate them? If it is true that the Government do not regard Northern Ireland simply as a security problem, would not that be a way to demonstrate it?

Mr. Prior: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his appointment and wish him every good fortune in it.
It is not a question of my being enthusiastic about the forum. The forum was set up in the South and, to my regret, is unrepresentative of the political parties in the North. When we know what is emanating from the forum, the House must decide whether it wishes to debate it. Obviously, the discussions will be important.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next question, I appeal for shorter supplementary questions and answers so that we may deal with more questions today than was the case yesterday.

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total cost in public funds of running the Northern Ireland Assembly for the past 12 months.

Mr. Prior: Just under £2·5 million.

Mr. Farr: Is that not a gross waste of public money? When does my right hon. Friend propose to put in hand steps to wind up the proceedings of the Assembly?

Mr. Prior: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is no, and the answer to his second is that I have no intention of doing so.

Frontier Security

Mr. Maginnis: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the additional burden on the security forces for which he is responsible of the continuing withdrawal of Regular Army units from static duties at permanent vehicle checkpoints along the frontier with the Irish Republic.

Mr. Prior: The deployment of troops in Northern Ireland is an operational matter for the GOC. Current deployments are designed to free more regular soldiers for flexible patrolling in planned operations.

Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State admit that his unjustified reduction in the number of regular soldiers in Northern Ireland from 10,000 to about 6,000 during the past 11 months has resulted in more UDR men being deployed at permanent vehicle checkpoints along the frontier with the Irish Republic? Is he aware that those men are taken away from their families for long periods, and that those families live unprotected while their men are away from home? Do those men not also take their local knowledge out of the area where it could be put to best use?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman's figures for the reduction in soldiers are incorrect. Between 9,000 and 9,500 soldiers are operating in Northern Ireland. Taking soldiers out of fixed vehicle checkpoints and other points, thereby making them more mobile, and replacing them with UDR men has helped security in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McCusker: Does the Secretary of State agree, therefore, that we must have the best camouflaged Army in the world?

Mr. Prior: I am delighted to hear that.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree that his present security policy has failed completely in Northern Ireland, and that he needs to change it forthwith?

Mr. Prior: That is a great insult to the troops and to the efforts made by hon. Members in all parts of the House and people throughout the country. If the hon. Gentleman would do a lttle more to keep peace and quiet in Northern Ireland, that would be helpful.

Irish Congress of Trade Unions

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): My right hon. Friend plans to meet the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in 28 November 1983.

Mr. Parry: When the Secretary of State meets members of that committee, will he tell them of the Government's plans for reducing the appalling level of unemployment in the Province, which is even worse than on Merseyside?

Mr. Butler: I am sure that that matter will arise because of the concern shared by all in Northern Ireland about the levels of unemployment. The Northern Ireland committee is well aware of what the Government are doing. It contributes through such bodies as the Industrial Development Board and the Northern Ireland Economic Council to bring about some improvement in the position. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there were signs of encouragement in the significant reduction in the last figures.

Mr. Loyden: Is the Minister satisfied that the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State are doing all that can be done to bring the trade union movement in Northern Ireland into the talks about the future of the Province, and especially about its future stability? Does he believe that trade unions have a real and positive role to play in dealing with the generality of Irish problems?

Mr. Butler: Where trade unions are involved in economic matters and in seeking to improve the economy, which will contribute to greater stability, I agree that they are playing a part.

Mr. Archer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that co-operation between the North and the South in industrial relations or any other economic matter can only be beneficial to both communities? That does not necessarily entail restricting co-operation with Great Britain. Will he propose to the Government of the Republic the establishment of a North-South economic development council?

Mr. Butler: The Northern Ireland committee is part of41the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, so there is continual dialogue between trade union members north and south of the border.
As I have said previously to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), there is no intention of introducing a single industrial development agency.

Maze Prison (Breakout)

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to receive Sir James Hennessy's report on the breakout of prisoners from Her Majesty's prison, Maze.

Mr. McCusker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about security at the Maze prison.

Mr. Prior: I understand from Sir James Hennessy that most of the evidence has been obtained and is now being analysed. However, further inquiries could be necessary. I know that Sir James and his team are continuing to give the inquiry the fullest priority but it is not possible to say for certain how long it will take. Until the report is available I cannot comment substantively on security at the Maze prison, except to assure the House that, as I indicated in my statement of 24 October, some improvements are being effected in the light of the experience gained on 25 September.

Mr. Brown: While I fully understand that my right hon. Friend cannot anticipate Sir James Hennessy's report and appreciate his assurance that some improvements in security measures have been implemented, is it possible for him to outline the nature of the security changes that have been made at the Maze prison?

Mr. Prior: There have been two improvements—one is to the locking devices for the main gate and the other is the further protection for prison officers in the main control room of H-block, where a man was shot during the last outbreak. Those are the two improvements to date, but it is early days.

Mr. Canavan: In his statement to the House on 24 October the Secretary of State described the Maze as the most secure prison in Northern Ireland. Which is the least secure?

Mr. Prior: They are all, I hope, more secure than they were.

Mr. Watson: What is the ratio between prisoners and prison officers in Northern Ireland, and how does that ratio compare with that for England and Wales?

Mr. Prior: There are 3,000 prison officers in Northern Ireland for 2,500 prisoners, and at the Maze there are 1,000 prison officers to 850 prisoners, which is more than a 1:1 ratio. This compares with one prison officer to 2·4 prisoners in England and Wales and, in maximum security prisons in England and Wales, to 1:1·3. There is no question of prisons being understaffed in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Maclennan: Since the Secretary of State refused in the House of Commons to accept political responsibility for the escape at the Maze, there has been a serious escape, that of Samuel Crowe from the Belfast city hospital. Does the right hon. Gentleman also propose to refuse to accept responsibility for that?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir, and I do not need any lessons in responsibility from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peter Robinson: As well as the report from Sir James Hennessy, the Secretary of State requested reports from the Chief Constable and the GOC in Northern Ireland. Will any part of the findings of those reports be published?

Mr. Prior: So far I have received oral reports from both the GOC and the Chief Constable. Further discussions have taken place, and a number of these points will be relevant to the Security Committee of the Assembly when I next meet it.

Mr. McCusker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the H-block system, as designed and intended to be run, would have made it the most secure prison system in western Europe? Does he also agree that it was only the demolition of the defensive mechanisms of the H-block, as a consequence of the concessions that the Government gave in the aftermath of the hunger strike, that enabled these people to escape?

Mr. Prior: I agree with the first of the hon. Gentleman's questions but he would not expect me to agree with the second. This matter is being examined by Sir James Hennessy, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the report.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State trying to tell us that the Maze is as secure as Buckingham palace?

Mr. Prior: That is not a question that I have to answer.

Superstores

Mr. Beggs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Her Majesty's Government will introduce measures to restrict the growth of new foreign-based superstores in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Beggs: What measures do the Government intend to take to protect small family businesses from the unfair competition of large superstores and chains of superstores throughout the United Kingdom which, because of their size, are able to purchase goods at lower prices than those obtainable by small businesses?

Mr. Butler: I share the sympathy that the hon. Gentleman expresses for small shopkeepers, but one has to bear in mind the benefit to the consumer of the operation of supermarkets. If there is unfair competition it is open to the Office of Fair Trading to take action, which it has in two recent instances in Northern Ireland.

Propaganda (Counter-measures)

Rev. Martin Smyth: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support the Northern Ireland Office is giving to individuals and groups seeking to counter adverse Republican propaganda internationally.

Mr. Prior: We provide extensive briefing and advice on Northern Ireland for individuals and groups visiting the United States and other countries, and diplomatic posts are also ready to provide guidance on the spot. I have myself recently returned from a visit to the United States.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, as it backs up some of the developments, especially his speech on the west coast of America. Is this not particularly important in view of the recent court decision and the statements thereon, and is it not important that we continue to keep up the pressure to put our case across?

Mr. Prior: Yes, everything that can be done needs to be done. I found that there was a growing understanding of the problems of the United Kingdom in its attitude to Northern Ireland. But, for all that, I have found some of the remarks of the last few hours extremely offensive.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Has my right hon. Friend assured himself that there is the fullest co-ordination of this support between his Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because there is always a danger of falling between two stools when two Departments are involved?

Mr. Prior: I saw the consuls-general in Boston, San Franciso and Los Angeles, each of whom has within his consul an Ulsterman working full time on behalf of Ulster, both on the inward investment side and in putting forward the Ulster view. I was impressed with the quality of those people and the interest that the consuls-general were showing.

Dr. Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend ask the American Government to appeal against the sentence recently delivered on Owen Canon and Danny Morrison, more effectively to counteract the adverse propaganda and publicity?

Mr. Prior: This was a bizarre affair from beginning to end. That is the only word that I can use to describe it. We must draw a sharp distinction between the views of the Administration and those of the Department of Justice in this respect. Whether or not there are any further representations from us about the appeal is a matter for our contacts with the Administration, although I hope that I have expressed the view of the House on the remarks made following that trial.

Dairy Industry

Mr. Nicholson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce measures to mitigate the serious effects on the Northern Ireland dairy sector of the current European Community proposals.

Mr. Butler: It is too early to say what, if any, measures might be necessary. Negotiations are still a long way from completion. I think we would be wise to wait for the outcome of the Athens summit and the price fixing thereafter.

Mr. Nicholson: Does the Minister accept that any further erosion of agriculture in Northern Ireland would have a dangerous and damaging effect not only on agriculture but on its ancillary industries? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to resist further damage to grass-based sectors of agriculture, mainly in the milk and dairy sector?

Mr. Butler: There is little doubt that the Northern Ireland dairy producer would tend to suffer worse than any if the proposals were to go through in their original form. However, it is important to wait and see what is finally negotiated. If it is necessary to take some balancing action, the Government will have to consider that in the light of events as they develop.

Mr. William Ross: In view of the recent reports that the EC is cooking the books on the rebate sought by the Prime Minister, does the Secretary of State believe that the Common Market will be sympathetic to the proposals on Northern Ireland agriculture, and will we not eventually be forced back on national measures to defend our industry?

Mr. Butler: What is important, first, is that the Commission should be aware of the impact of any proposals on United Kingdom agriculture as a whole and also on Northern Ireland agriculture. My noble Friend the Earl of Mansfield, who is responsible for these measures in Northern Ireland, is ensuring that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is aware of the position.

Mr. John David Taylor: Does the Minister accept that, no matter what the final outcome of the EC negotiations, there will be a curtailment of milk production? That being so, and as Northern Ireland milk producers have no alternative means of livelihood such as is available to producers elsewhere in Europe, will the Minister ensure that at this stage their special circumstances are taken into account by our Government in the negotiations?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the latter part of the question is in what I said a moment ago. There is overcapacity and an over-supply in milk, which is proving far too expensive. Some measures have to be taken to curtail production.

Mr. Soley: Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will not go beyond the requirements of the European Court and previous commitments by the British Government by letting in sterilised milk and unfrozen pasturised cream as well as UHT milk—a policy which is causing considerable anxiety?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the anxiety on that point, which is a somewhat different matter. The Government have made their position clear. We have had to accept the ruling of the Court. We are taking measures to ensure that there is no risk to human health through the importation of that very restricted group of milk products.

Armagh Prison (Screening of Prisoners)

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will install metal detectors at Her Majesty's prison, Armagh, for the screening of high security prisoners when they leave and re-enter the prison.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Hand-held metal detectors are already in use as a security aid at Her Majesty's prison, Armagh.

Ms. Short: Is the Minister aware that the introduction of strip searches of the women prisoners at Armagh gaol has caused deep offence to the prisoners and to the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland? Is he further aware that the governor made it clear that the reason for the introduction of the strip searches was the discovery of some keys in the prison and his anxiety to exclude guns, knives and similar objects? Does he agree that those objects would be better found by installing high-quality metal detection devices than by the offensive searches that take place at present?

Mr. Scott: I cannot believe that strip searching is a pleasant experience, either for the prisoners or for those who carry it out. However, I am convinced that it is necessary, in the interests of security at Armagh and other prisons, for us to have that procedure available to ensure security.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will my hon. Friend remove the impression given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that these searches are restricted to Republican prisoners?

Mr. Scott: Strip searches are available in all prisons in Northern Ireland and are used according to the judgment of the governors of those prisons. Perhaps I might put a further point to the hon. Lady. Metal detectors are of no use in tracing explosives.

Mr. McNamara: Was it not rather strange and sudden that after so many years, because of one minor incident, a prison governor should have gone off in the way he did and introduced this most rigorous system, causing great dissatisfaction among the people concerned, and in many cases creating more problems for the security forces than existed before?

Mr. Scott: As the hon. Gentleman knows from questions that he has tabled, there have been further discoveries of illicit materials as a result of strip searching.

Mr. William Ross: Can the Minister give the people of Northern Ireland an assurance that no guns are floating around inside Northern Ireland prisons now?

Mr. Scott: All that is humanly possible is being done to ensure that no illicit material gets into the prisons in Northern Ireland.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister agree that what is needed in Northern Ireland is tighter security inside the prisons, rather than lighter security?

Mr. Scott: Of course. We want maximum security both within and at the perimeter of our prisons, and we do our best to ensure that.

Scheduled Offences

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been received in prison in Northern Ireland having been convicted of scheduled offences in the past 12 months.

Mr. Scott: Of the 1,867 persons committed to prison under sentence in the 12 months up to 30 September 1983, 476 were sentenced for scheduled offences.

Mr. Canavan: How many of those people are in prison because of the evidence of "supergrasses" who have been bribed by the police and given immunity from prosecution? Does he agree that law and order is being brought into disrepute, through a system of so-called justice in Northern Ireland that is grossly inferior to the standards of justice in England, Scotland or Wales?

Mr. Scott: Questions about evidence from converted terrorists is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and not for me or my right hon. Friend. I utterly reject the basis of the supplementary question, which I believe is quite disgraceful.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Can the Minister say how many of those who were found guilty of such offences received non-custodial sentences?

Mr. Scott: I cannot say without notice. I would be very surprised if many people who were convicted of scheduled offences received non-custodial sentences.

Ms. Harman: Does the Minister accept that reducing the opportunities to the right to a jury trial through having people tried for serious offences by a judge alone undermines respect for law and order? Does he agree that by restoring jury trials he will restore more respect for the administration of justice, and not provide a fresh source for existing grievances?

Mr. Scott: I do not believe that anyone would lightly change from the system that exists in the rest of the. United Kingdom, but I am convinced that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland it is necessary for us to do that. On the other hand, we are having a comprehensive review under Sir George Baker of the workings of the emergency provisions legislation, and we should await his findings before we say anything more on the matter.

Mr. Flannery: Can the Minister give us an assurance that perjured murderers supergrassing, possibly on other murderers, are not being paid money to do that? Or are people being put in prison because of the so-called evidence of perjured murderers who are being paid?

Mr. Scott: I utterly reject the basis of that supplementary question. As I have already said, any detailed questions about payments are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, not for me.

Mr. Archer: I do not invite the Minister to anticipate Sir George Baker's report, but, as Mr. Dermot Walsh's survey in 1981 found that 40 per cent. of the cases tried under the Diplock procedure have no connection with terrorism, will he keep an open mind on the proposal that the Attorney-General's certifying out procedure should be replaced by a certifying in procedure so that there is no assumption that what appear on the face of them to be normal offences should be tried without a jury?

Mr. Scott: I am sure that Sir George Baker will have seen that evidence or allegation—as well as others—and will take it into account in his findings.

Small Dwellings (Acquisitions)

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will adjust the limiting value of £15,000 for the purposes of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts to take account of the rise in prices.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I am not aware of any need for increased public sector provision of home loans, given the substantially increased volume of building society money that has been provided for mortgages in recent years. I am anxious to maintain the impetus towards greater home ownership and will be glad to look into cases of difficulty in securing home loans from the private sector.

Mr. Walker: There has been no movement in the limiting factor of £15,000 since 1978, and I hope that the Minister recognises that. Will he look with sympathy on the fact that in some instances people cannot get mortgages from the Housing Executive or from the other statutory agencies, and bear in mind that this procedure is useful?

Mr. Patten: What is important is that the demand for home loans should be met. At present there is no evidence that it is not being met. I am pleased to say that the figures for private sector building in Northern Ireland are at record-breaking levels. Last year building societies lent £270 million in Northern Ireland, and so far this year they have lent £165 million.

Agricultural Grants

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the reason for the delay in payment of approved claims for agricultural grants; and what steps he is taking to eliminate the backlog.

Mr. Butler: Several factors contribute to the delays, including an increase in current claims of over 20 per cent. compared to the previous six-month period, and the large number of claims that have had to be returned to applicants for further information or because the necessary supporting documents were not attached.
Action, including increasing the number of staff available to work on these schemes, was taken during late summer, and the backlog of outstanding claims is now being reduced.

Mr. Powell: As it was known many months ago that these delays were accumulating, why were not steps taken earlier to prevent hardship to legitimate claimants through delay in receiving their payments and to avoid the necessity of the noble Earl having to tell me at the beginning of November that he looked forward to a reduction in the time taken to process these claims?

Mr. Butler: I have referred to a number of circumstances, but, in fact, new staff were taken on for training in anticipation of problems of this kind. I equally regret the delay in these payments and the effect that that will have on the finances of the farmers who are affected. However, I can give no hope of the backlog being eradicated within a short period.

Mr. William Ross: Why is it necessary for farmers in Northern Ireland to give prior notification before they start working on grant schemes in Northern Ireland, when such notification is not required in Great Britain?

Mr. Butler: It was because of the absence of prior notification that a great deal of money was spent on concrete roads last season, and we believe that it is a sensible precaution to take in Northern Ireland, and one which does not occupy a great deal of officials' time.

Rev. William McCrae: Does the Minister agree that this delay in payment is causing great hardship and concern in the agricultural community?

Mr. Butler: I agree that in certain cases where it applies there is clearly some pressure on the personal finances of the farmers involved. We are doing all that we can to speed up the process.

Mr. Archer: The Prime Minister always enjoys boasting about the number of civil servants who have been made redundant by her Government, but does the Minister agree that they are not redundant if there is work for them to do, and that all that is achieved is that the public services suffer and people are kept waiting for money to which they are entitled?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard me say that new staff were taken on and trained for that purpose. One of the problems is that the applicants themselves failed to complete their forms satisfactorily, and about one-third of them had to be sent back.

Kinsale Gas Field

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects gas from the Kinsale field to be available to consumers in the Province; and what reduction in current costs can be anticipated.

Mr. Butler: It is expected that natural gas will be supplied to the Belfast area towards the end of 1985 and to Londonderry as soon as possible thereafter. Supply to other areas of the Province will depend on the outcome of independent technical and market studies that I am commissioning. Natural gas tariffs are likely to be up to 25 per cent. below current average town gas prices.

Mr. Ross: May I congratulate the Minister on the successful conclusion of these negotiations, which represent a great step forward for the Province? Will the gas available be sufficient for present known needs—I think that the agreement has a 22-year term with a supply of 1,720 million therms? Will that be sufficient for present known needs?

Mr. Butler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I believe that this development will be to the benefit of the Northern Ireland economy and Northern Ireland consumers. We are confident that there is sufficient gas for the period of the contract. We anticipate about a sixfold increase in the consumption of natural gas in taking account of needs.

Mr. McCusker: If it is essential to hold on to existing consumers to get the sixfold increase in demand and to envisage reducing the price in two years by 25 per cent., why is the Minister insisting that the undertakings increase their prices by another 7·5 per cent.?

Mr. Butler: For the simple reason that it was a condition of the subsidy to the undertakings that they should increase their prices in line with fuel and labour costs. In order to attract the subsidy retrospectively for 1982–83, it will be necessary for them to increase prices. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the percentage increase in those prices is only a little above that which has obtained for other forms of energy, certainly for coal.

Scheduled Offences

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will propose that a sentence of imprisonment for the duration of the time when the emergency provisions legislation shall remain in force in Northern Ireland be available to the courts there when sentencing those convicted of scheduled offences.

Mr. Scott: No, Sir. I do not think the courts should be able to impose sentences the duration of which could be determined by the life of the emergency legislation and which would thus be unconnected with the gravity of the offence or the circumstances of the offender.

Mr. Stanbrook: As a significant proportion of all those who are convicted of terrorism are subsequently released only to commit fresh terrorist offences., is it not common sense, as well as a means of discouraging violence in Northern Ireland, for them to be kept in prison for the duration of the emergency?

Mr. Scott: I see no justification for saying that people should be sentenced and that their release should be dependent on the general security position in the Province or on a political decision of this House rather than be linked to the offence that they have committed.

Secretary of State (Boston Speech)

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech delivered in Boston on 25 October.

Mr. Prior: Although I gave two short addresses in Boston on 25 October I spoke informally and without a text. I have, however, arranged for texts of the speeches that I made in San Francisco on 26 October and in Los Angeles on 28 October to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Molyneaux: May I express satisfaction over the Secretary of State's co-operation in placing in the Library the fair and balanced speech that he made in San Francisco? May I ask him to commend through the Northern Ireland Office the text of that balanced and realistic speech to those who will be studying these matters in months to come on the basis that it forms a much more realistic approach than many of the documents that are currently being circulated?

Mr. Prior: Without in any way accepting the blandishments of the right hon. Gentleman, may I say that I hope he will read the whole speech and not just the little bits that he likes.

Mr. Adley: I fully share my right hon. Friend's disgust at the recent court events of which he spoke earlier. May I remind him of my questions to him a year or more ago about the discussions with the American Government on attempting to unify the procedures for extradition and the criteria used in British and American courts——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about the Secretary of State's speech.

Museums

Mr. Freeson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to implement the recommendations of the working party review of museums in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Scott: The Museums and Galleries Commission review of museums and related services in Northern Ireland was issued on 18 October; interested parties have been invited to submit comments by the end of December 1983, and in the light of the views expressed and the availability of resources, decisions will then be taken on implementation.

Mr. Freeson: Does the Minister agree that the report makes a vitally important point when it argues that the development of the museums would not only create direct employment but would encourage and attract industry to the Province? Does the Minister agree that he should make available the funds necessary for the developments proposed?

Mr. Scott: That is but one of several important points that are made in the report. I am now waiting for comments and I look forward to receiving them. Then we can move to decisions.

Scheduled Offences

Ms. Harman: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will review they list of scheduled offences with a view to descheduling lesser offences and those unconnected with terrorism.

Mr. Scott: The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 is currently the subject of an independent review by Sir George Baker. I intend to await such recommendations as Sir George may make in this, as in other matters.

Ms. Harman: Does not the Minister regard it as nonsense that offences such as assault occasioning actual bodily harm which might have nothing at all to do with terrorism are nevertheless tried by a judge without a jury as if the offence was to do with terrorism? Does he agree that this brings the law into disrepute?

Mr. Scott: As I said earlier, that type of allegation is, I am sure, being considered by Sir George Baker. Let us wait for his report.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Ward: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Commonwealth Secretary General.

Mr. Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware of the anger in the country at the latest attempt by the Brussels Commission to distort the figures for the Community budget? Is she further aware that she will have the support of the whole House if she takes the most vigorous action to resist such an underhand means of going about things?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the latest report by the Commission as its contribution to the budget problem is unsound, unhelpful and unacceptable, and we shall say so and act accordingly.

Dr. Owen: Now that 94 per cent. of the British people want dual control over cruise missiles if they are to be made operational on 31 December and, more importantly, now that 78 per cent. want dual control and are prepared to pay for it, is it not time that the Government reconsidered their position and asked why a broad consensus exists in France over nuclear deterrent strategy, stretching from the Church to the Communist party?

Mr. Skinner: They have dual control and it does not work.

The Prime Minister: We debated these matters in the House last week. The main purpose of cruise missiles, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is deterrence. We have the same arrangements now as obtained for many years in respect of nuclear-capable bombers and Poseidon submarines in British waters. The debate in the House last week was conclusive.

Mr. Needham: Is it not time that the NUM held a ballot on the overtime ban? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overtime ban is doing nothing for the miners or the coal industry? Would it not assist if people such as the Leader of the Opposition helped the democratic process by condemning the ban?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the overtime ban is damaging both to miners and to the mining industry. What we need is a good profitable mining industry with the price of coal as low as possible, so that we can get other energy prices down. The overtime ban is not helping in any way.

Mr. Randall: Did the Prime Minister agree to the reported resumption of United States arms sales to Argentina? Was she fully consulted by President Reagan on this matter, or has he gone and done another Grenada on her?

The Prime Minister: So far as I am aware no decision has yet been taken by the United States about the resumption of arms sales to Argentina. As I understand it, first there would have to be certification of human rights in Argentina—that would not necessarily give rise to arms sales later, but it is a condition that would have to be fulfilled before further arms sales would be considered. Should there be further arms sales to Argentina without a cessation of hostilities, it would not be understood in this country. We have protested most vigorously in advance and would protest again if it came about.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. MacKay: Since my right hon. Friend's return from Germany, has she had an opportunity to study the text of the excellent Darwin lecture delivered by the Lord Chief Justice last Tuesday in Cambridge in which he called on the British people to go into battle against crime, said that there was a need for strong punishments to combat video nasties and, perhaps most serious of all, suggested that the Government were not taking action to stop heroin drugs coming in from Pakistan?

The Prime Minister: I have seen what the Lord Chief Justice said about drugs, crime and pornography and I think that the overwhelming majority of people in this

country approve of what he said and of his encouragement that everyone should help and support the police. As for video nasties, I hope that the Bill that will come before the House tomorrow will receive its Second Reading and go through all its stages as soon as possible.

Mr. Kinnock: Has the Prime Minister had time to study the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill that has been produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)? In view of the purposes of the Bill and the widespread all-party support that it enjoys, will the Prime Minister ensure that a money resolution is attached to the Bill to ensure that it is fully effective?

The Prime Minister: I am not in a position to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question about a money resolution. I can only remind him that this Government's record of help to the disabled is very good indeed.

Mr. Kinnock: If the Prime Minister cannot answer that, I am not sure who can. I insist that this is not, and must not become, a partisan matter? Will the right hon. Lady give further consideration to the matter? Does she recognise that the Bill will be of considerable advantage in combating prejudice, disadvantage and discrimination against disabled people, but that without an expenditure commitment——

Mr. Marlow: How much?

Mr. Kinnock: As much as it takes to safeguard disabled people. Is the Prime Minister aware that without such a public expenditure commitment the value of this widely supported Bill will be very much reduced?

The Prime Minister: The matter must be considered along with consideration of the Bill, and my right hon. Friends and I will, of course, give it earnest consideration. In the meantime, I repeat that this Government's record of help to the disabled is excellent.

Mr. Silvester: Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest attack on Christian education by Manchester city council, which proposes to substitute pop songs for Christian hymns and periods of silence for Christian prayer? Does she agree that the protection of the rights of minorities cannot be obtained by bleeding the Christian content out of the school curriculum for the majority?

The Prime Minister: I saw some account in the press to that effect. As my hon. Friend knows, it is still the law of the land that there should be an act of worship and of assembly at the beginning of every school day. Anybody who tries to deprive children of that or of the pleasure of singing hymns may deprive them of an experience they may never otherwise have.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the growing unease in the coal mining industry has brought about a meeting of the three major trade unions in the industry—the triple alliance—and that that unease has been enhanced by MacGregor's statements about mine closures for reasons other than exhaustion and by Government statements about privatisation? Will she now categorically deny that privatisation statement and discuss with MacGregor the question of closures?

The Prime Minister: The Financial Secretary did not say that the coal mining industry was to be privatised, but that it would be right for some of the subsidiary activities


to be privatised, and while the hon. Gentleman might contest that, I doubt whether he would disagree with it. As for the industry in general, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this Government have honoured to the full their promise to invest in the future of the coal industry. "Plan for Coal", which was published in 1974, was not honoured in regard to productivity improvements or pit closures.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lloyd: Will the Prime Minister take time to congratulate the Secretary of State for Energy on behalf of Opposition Members and million; of pensioners, unemployed and low-paid people throughout the country on his fight in the Cabinet this morning against the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep energy prices down below the rate of inflation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If the right hon. Gentleman lost that fight, what plan does the right hon. Lady have for the uprating of benefits and pensions?

The Prime Minister: I fear that I was not able to hear all of that supplementary. The Secretary of State for Energy is in China.

Mr. Jackson: After her visit yesterday to the Federal Republic, can my right hon. Friend confirm reports in the press today that the German Government find as unacceptable as we do the Commission's latest proposals on the European budget?

The Prime Minister: The Federal Republic of Germany holds views very similar to ours on the need to reform the Common Market budget. Its view is that net contributions are the proper measure from which to start.

Mr. Ewing: Has the Prime Minister had time to study the speech of the director general of the CBI, Sir Terence Beckett, to the CBI in Glasgow in which he painted a gloomy picture of the economy? In view of that, does the Prime Minister hold to her view that the economy is recovering now and will continue to recover?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the secretary general of the CBI concluded his speech by saying:
We now have forward momentum"——
[Interruption.]
Inflation is down. Management is more confident about its effectiveness. There is some growth. Wage settlements are down. Productivity is up. Our profits are better and liquidity has improved.
I could do with more criticism of that kind.

Mr. Eggar: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Eggar: Has my right hon. Friend noted the important speech made by the Financial Secretary last week in which he showed conclusively that the

introduction of competition and privatisation was good for jobs, good for consumers and good for the taxpayer? Will she assure the House that action on the principles outlined by the Financial Secretary will be a top priority of this Government?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that competition always produces a better bargain for the consumer than monopoly of any kind. That is one reason why we must continue our privatisation programme along the lines indicated by the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that when MacGregor, the right hon. Lady's hit man in charge of the coal industry, was speaking—[Interruption.] I can wait until the Liberal and SDP Members are quiet.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is moving on, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not wait too long.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need:3 my protection.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Speaker's pet.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Lady aware that when MacGregor spoke in Nottingham yesterday he said that if miners refused to withdraw the overtime ban he would withdraw the wage increase?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Come on.

Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Lady remind Mr. MacGregor that the miners have what is known as a five-day week agreement, which means that they do not have to engage in overtime to obtain a proper wage increase? Will she also bear in mind that if it is right for the Government to put legislation through the House of Commons to allow tax relief for marginal oilfields, it is also right that marginal pits should be kept open?

The Prime Minister: What an industry can offer in wage increases depends upon its success in selling a product at a price that buyers can afford to pay. The external financing of the National Coal Board is more than £1 billion and of that some £500 million is a straight forward subsidy to the coal industry's losses. I hope that those figures will be borne in mind. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also bear in mind that there are well over 55 million tonnes of coal on the ground at the moment.

Mr. McQuarrie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is evident from the way that you handled the House today that you look after the minorities, but it may not have been drawn to your notice that 56 of the 60 questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the Order Paper today were open questions. You may recall that on a number of occasions your predecessor drew to the attention of the House the need for more positive questions. May we have your guidance and advice?

Mr. Speaker: I share the views of my predecessor on open questions but I have no way of controlling the questions that are put on the Order Paper. They are in order.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 NOVEMBER — Second Reading of the Education (Grants and Awards) Bill.
TUESDAY 15 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill.
Motion relating to the Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 16 NOVEMBER — Opposition Day (3rd allotted day—first part): There will be a debate on the damage to householders caused by Government improvement grant cuts, on an Opposition motion. Afterwards, motions relating to Milk Regulations.
THURSDAY 17 NOVEMBER—Debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 18 NOVEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 21 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day (3rd allotted day—second part): subject for debate to be announced.
Motions on European Community Documents 6374/83, 6450/83 and 6375/83 on coal and steel.

[Relevant documents: Debate on 21 November: Social measures in the steel industry: Contribution to ECSC Budget 1983–86 Doc. No. 6375/83; 4th Report on aids to the steel industry Doc. No. 6374/83; General objectives for steel 1985 Doc. No. 6450/83. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 78-i (1983–84) paras. 3 and 4; HC 34-vii (1982–83) para. 3.]

Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his autumn statement next week? On what day will that statement be made?
During the first part of the Opposition day next Wednesday the subject is to be the damage to householders caused by the cuts in improvement grants. I hope that we shall have a declaration of policy revising that which has been rumoured.
We also hope that during the debate that the Opposition have initiated next Wednesday the Government will make it clear beyond all possible doubt that they will preserve the traditional method of milk delivery in Britain, which is highly advantageous to both consumers and traders.
We should like a debate in Government time on the scandal of the car tax fiddlers. As a result of Government policy, only 15·75 per cent. of reported offenders were prosecuted or penalised in 1982. That resulted in a substantial loss of revenue, which will be infuriating to honest motorists.
Will the Secretary of State for Energy be back from China by the time that the rise in gas and electricity prices, which have apparently been agreed in his absence, come into effect?

Mr. Biffen: May I take the five points in reverse order?
It is likely that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will have returned by next week to lend his formidable qualities in wholehearted support of the Government's economic policy.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's interest in a debate upon car tax and perhaps we can pursue that through the usual channels.
I cannot anticipate the arguments that will be deployed in the debate that we are to have on the milk delivery methods in Britain, but I note the right hon. Gentleman's point and I am sure that it will be covered in the ministerial answer to the debate on those orders.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's point on the Opposition day debate on housing and I am sure that he will take it into account in his contribution in that debate.
I confirm that there will be the traditional autumn statement from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot say precisely on what day that will be but the matter will be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 204 and particularly to the amendment that stands in my name and those of 30 of my hon. Friends?
[That this House deeply regrets the continuing dispute at the Messenger Group of Newspapers in the North West of England, the behaviour of the Chairman of the Group Mr. Selim Jehan Shah in trying to break freely agreed contracts with the National Graphical Association, and his apparent determination not to allow employees of his companies to belong to trade union; congratulates Reed International and North Cheshire County Newspapers Ltd. in withdrawing financial support for the Messenger Group of Newspapers; believes all trade unionists and others should refuse to receive these free newspapers through their doors and refuse to co-operate in any way with these companies; and calls on all advertisers not to use these newspapers until such time as Mr. Shah and the Messenger Company agree to carry out the terms of the agreement with the National Graphical Association, and respect the rights of employees to join trade unions and work for fair conditions of employment.
To leave out from 'England' to end and add: 'the behaviour of the National Graphical Association in trying to impose a closed shop in circumstances where the employees concerned after a free secret ballot have unanimously rejected it; supports the Messenger Group and its chairman in their right to maintain the democratic right of their employees to be free to decide whether or not to join a union, which is exemplified by the existence of closed shops for both the National Union of Journalists and the National Graphical Association at two of the companies within the Group; and deplores the pressure which was brought to bear on Reed International and North Cheshire County Newspapers Ltd. to sell their shares in the Messenger Group or its associated companies.']
Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday that small firm, which employs only 120 people, had 700 pickets outside its offices and that there was intimidation and harassment? Will the Government, or better still the Labour party, give time for a full debate on this issue and so bring to the attention of the British people this example of the unacceptable face of trade unionism?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is a skilled parliamentary lobbyist. Within the past 48 hours he has brought this


matter to the attention of the House in an Adjournment debate. I take note of the point that he now makes, but I regret that I cannot offer Government time for its debate. I understand the importance that my hen. Friend attaches to it and I wish him well in his campaign.

Dr. David Owen: On the third Supply day next week we hope to be able to support the Labour party on the house improvement grants and we hope that on the second Supply day today it will support us in a similar motion, but what is to happen about the fourth Supply day? Is the Leader of the House prepared to continue with the system whereby the Opposition Supply days are entirely decided by the Labour party? As a major priority, in fairness to the House will he now look at the Standing Orders and ensure that the allocation of Supply days is done by the House as a whole, reflecting the balance of political opinion in Britain?

Mr. Biffen: Supply days are operated under Standing Orders which were voted by the House recently and I see no early prospect of their change.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Progress is being made on the re-establishment of Select Committees, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the previous Parliament the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs had the largest number of members—13—which proved highly impractical when it came to detailed interrogation of witnesses? Will he consider either an instruction to the Liaison Committee to enable the Scottish Affairs Committee to appoint a Sub-Committee, which it was not able to do in the previous Parliament, or to reduce the number to more manageable proportions?

Mr. Biffen: I will look at that point, but I do not want my hon. Friend to travel too hopefully i this matter.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House prevail on his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to give a clear and concise statement of Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the third United Nations convention on the law of the sea? I fear that our adherence to the United States' position is causing great embarrassment to Third world nations. Could we make our position indelibly clear?

Mr. Biffen: I will see that the point which very properly exercises the hon. Gentleman's mind is brought to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. David Crouch: The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment are seeking the widest consultation with industry on what are termed the Vredeling and the fifth directive proposals from Brussels. Will there also be an opportunity for the House to be consulted on this matter in the near future with a full day's debate on worker participation, as interpreted in Brussels?

Mr. Biffen: I realise that those proposals are causing controversy. I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's request that they should be subject to debate in the House. However, no provision has been made for such a debate next week.

Mr. Jack Ashley: On 27 October the Leader of the House promised my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he would consider a debate on the sale of Times Newspapers Ltd. No

exchanges since then have invalidated the need for such a debate. The issues raised are too important to be brushed aside. Will the right hon. Gentleman now give favourable consideration to the need for that debate?

Mr. Biffen: There have been a number of parliamentary exchanges on that matter, and a number of questions have been answered. That being so, I do not feel able to guarantee or offer any Government time for such a debate.

Sir Bernard Braine: During the past fortnight, hon. Members on both sides of the House have presented no fewer than 280 petitions from several hundreds of thousands of their constituents on the subject of doctors ignoring the importance of consulting parents on the treatment of their teenage children. There are more petitions to come. In view of the nationwide interest in the subject, will my right hon. Friend persuade the Minister for Health to make an early statement and, preferably, will he arrange for the House to debate the subject immediately after such a statement is made?

Mr. Biffen: I will draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health. I realise that this topic arouses great feeling. but I also believe that the matter is before the courts.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Will the Leader of the House find time for the Scottish Office to make statements in the House on health matters? For the second time in four days, the Scottish Office has avoided making a major statement by using a planted question. On the issues of blood and the major reorganisation of the Health Service the 72 Scottish Members should have an opportunity of questioning the Minister, as only one Wednesday a month is allowed for Scottish questions.

Mr. Biffen: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point and will make those representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government have no intention of allowing their proposals for legislation on rates to be delayed in any way by internal difficulties with Conservatives in local governmert?

Mr. Biffen: I am innocent enough not to know very much about such things.

Mr. Greville Janner: When can we have a debate on the opening up of the new coalfields in Leicestershire, in particular the Asfordby pit? Can the welcome absence of the Secretary of State for Energy in China possibly be the reason for the Government's inexcusable and disgraceful prevarication in a matter which threatens the entire future of the Leicestershire coalfields and the livelihood of many of my constituents?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to make his speech next Tuesday, on Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Could my right hon. Friend explain to the House when we may expect prime ministerial statements to follow bilateral summit meetings? The Anglo-Irish summit was followed by a statement, but the Anglo-German summit was not. Why was that?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot explain the reasons immediately, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend's point is transmitted to those who can.

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister today to reconsider her decision not to visit St. Paul's eye hospital in my constituency in Liverpool? There are currently nearly 500 people on the waiting list of that hospital, including 181 women and 84 urgent cases, yet the authority intends to close a ward and reduce services and numbers of beds to meet the Government's vicious spending cuts.

Mr. Biffen: Putting aside the charge of vicious spending cuts and speaking in a more charitable fashion, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will transmit his request to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: My right hon. Friend gave a characteristically sympathetic reply two weeks ago to my request for a debate on planning and development. Grave concern is being voiced on that issue in all parts of the House and the country. Would it therefore be possible for us to have a full day's debate? A debate on the adjournment would not be appropriate.

Mr. Biffen: I will inform my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment of my hon. Friend's point. As my hon. Friend will realise, Members have various opportunities to pursue such topics.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Could we have a further statement next week on the up-to-date situation in Grenada and in particular on the role of the Governor-General Sir Paul Scoon who, in asking for external intervention and appointing an interim Government with himself as their head, seems to be in breach of the constitution which gave him his job and which was approved by this House?
Can the Leader of the House confirm reports that the British Government's plans to use the SAS to rescue Sir Paul Scoon from Grenada had to be abandoned because of the American invasion?

Mr. Biffen: I simply cannot confirm any of the hon. Gentleman's more exotic speculations, but I assure him that if the situation in the Caribbean next week necessitates a Government statement, a statement will be made.

Mr. Rob Hayward: The last debate on procedure in the House of Commons was held on 19 July 1982. Since then there has been a substantial change in the membership of the House. Could my right hon. Friend allow some time in the near future for a debate on procedure in the House, including the hours that we work and the number of hon. Members in the Chamber?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend may not have been present last week when I announced, in response to a request from the Leader of the Opposition, the Government's intention to set up a Procedure Committee.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Leader of the House may be called upon next week or thereafter to adjudicate upon the article in The Times today by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston). Before he sets up a series of meetings in order to do so, he should check the hon. Gentleman's voting record. Although the hon. Member has complained about

the number of opportunities he has to speak in the House, he only managed to vote on 81 occasions out of 332 in the last full parliamentary Session, so he might be hard to find.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Biffen: I am not sure that I have any role as an adjudicator. If I have, it is nice to know that the hon. Gentleman will be my research assistant.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my hon. Friend urgently consider the reform of Standing Committee procedure? On any important measure, the first half of the time available to the Committee is taken up with mindless filibustering. If my right hon. Friend had the time to meet me outside Committee Room 11, where the Telecommunications Bill is in Committee, I could give him some horrifying evidence.

Mr. Biffen: There is no horror left for me. My hon. Friend might find that the Procedure Committee will address itself to such matters.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Has the Leader of the House had time to reflect on my suggestion last week that it would be sensible to hold a debate on the purchase of The Sunday Times by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, because of allegations that the figures have been fiddled? While on the subject of fiddlers, will the right hon. Gentleman think again about providing time next week to discuss the appalling issue of the car tax fiddlers, particularly as it probably touches on the rampant way in which this Government have axed civil servants?

Mr. Biffen: In reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot add to what I said to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). As for the second part of his question, I cannot add to what I said to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend realise that more than 200 petitions have been presented to the House—with more to come—on the subject of doctors prescribing contraceptives without parental knowledge or consent to girls aged under 16, and that those petitions bear hundreds of thousands of signatures? Is he aware that the early-day motion on the Order Paper has attracted 55 signatures in just a couple of days?
[That this House calls for the withdrawal of the 1980 Department of Health and Social Security Revised Health Service Notice (Section G) which advises doctors that they may provide contraceptive drugs or devices to girls under the age of consent without their parents being consulted; and recognises that many thousands of constituents of Right honourable and honourable Members have expressed their opposition to the Revised Health Service Notice by way of public petition.]
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an urgent debate to be held on that important subject, as the whole nation finds it disturbing?

Mr. Biffen: I accept that the topic is important, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that I cannot really go beyond what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir. B. Braine).

Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall have an opportunity to debate the White Paper entitled "Streamlining the Cities", Cmnd. 9063, before 31


January, when the consultation period ends? Certain aspects of it, particularly concerning support for the arts, have national implications and concern all hon. Members.

Mr. Biffen: I cannot give that guarantee, but I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. David Winnick: When will the Home Secretary make a statement telling us why the remaining Mosley papers are not being released? Is the Cabinet afraid that such papers will show even more clearly how establishment and Tory circles were involved in supporting Fascism at home and dictatorships abroad? Should not all the papers be released as quickly as possible?

Mr. Biffen: The more that papers are released about that distinguished refugee from the Labour party, the less easy it will be to maintain a conspiracy view of history. However, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, because I suspect that there is a desire in many parts of the House to see those papers published.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: The hon. Members for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) asked questions about the petitions that have been presented on the subject of contraceptives being given to girls under the age of consent. Is the Leader of the House aware that many of us presented such petitions in good faith, because we were asked to do so by our constituents? However, that does not necessarily mean that we agreed with the details of the petitions. The procedure for presenting petitions is such that we do not have an opportunity to make such points other than, for example, at this time. Will the Leader of the House take that into account in considering the representations made to him by those two hon. Members?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point.

Defective Housing

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about defective housing.
On 7 September 1982 my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) announced a scheme for financial assistance in the form of repairs grants or repurchase to owners of Airey houses which had been sold by public bodies and which had subsequently been discovered to be subject to serious or potential defects. On 8 February he told the House that he had asked the Building Research Establishment to study possible deterioration in other types of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built before 1960. The establishment is publishing today an information paper summarising the findings of separate reports on six of the most common types—the Boot, Cornish Unit, Orlit, Unity, Wates and Woolaway designs. A copy of the information paper has been placed in the Library.
The Building Research Establishment has found that the reinforced concrete components in all six types are gradually deteriorating as a result of carbonation of the concrete and, in some cases, the presence of high levels of chloride, leading to corrosion of the steel reinforcement and consequent cracking of the concrete. The great majority of the houses studied were found to be.in a structurally sound condition. There were significant differences in the rate of deterioration both between and within types. Some cracking was found in all the types and the nature of the process is such that deterioration will continue, although in some cases very slowly. All houses of these types will eventually be affected by cracking. Cracking in a proportion of houses will not occur for some years and a few houses may not display any evidence of deterioration for the next 30 years or more.
No conditions were found which were structurally unsafe. Risk to stability would be preceded by visible serious cracking in Boot, Cornish Unit, Wates and Woolaway houses. In Orlit houses, concealed main and secondary beams should be inspected now, if this has not been done already following the Department's letter to local authorities of 2 September 1982. Concealed columns and steel bracing in those Unity houses that have plasterboard or other dry lining should be inspected within the next year. Where serious cracking is present, professional advice should be sought.
The processes of carbonation and attack by chlorides are likely to affect all prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built before 1960. There are about 170,000 of these houses in the United Kingdom which were built by public bodies. Approximately 16,500 have been sold, mostly to sitting tenants.
I stress that the Building Research Establishment's studies are only of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses. The conclusions carry no implications for houses of non-traditional design which use other load-bearing materials.
Private owners will find themselves in a difficult position as a result of the effect of these findings on the value of their houses. The Government have decided to introduce early legislation to provide a scheme of assistance to private owners of houses sold by the public sector and since found to be defective or potentially


defective. It will be on lines that are broadly similar to those of the scheme for owners of Airey houses, which is already in existence.
The essential feature of the proposals will be a right of assistance. This will arise where the Secretary of State determines that houses of a particular category built by a public body should fall within the scheme because he is satisfied that, as a result of their design or construction, they suffer from, or can be expected to suffer from, structural defects not discoverable by normal survey at the time they were sold and which have resulted in a substantial loss of value in real terms as compared with the value at purchase. In respect of these houses local authorities will be under a statutory duty to assist either by way of a repairs grant or repurchase.
A grant of 90 per cent. of eligible expenses on repairs is intended to be the main form of assistance. But there will be cases in which repair will be uneconomic, or will not give the house a further useful life of at least 30 years, or will still not make the house mortgageable in the private sector. There will be other cases in which there would be hardship for the owner if repair were the only form of assistance possible. In these cases we propose to lay a duty on local authorities to acquire the dwellings if the owner wishes. Owners will receive 95 per cent. of the defect-free value of the house.
We have it in mind that the scheme should apply to all types of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built before 1960. However, no final decisions have been taken on the initial coverage of the scheme and the BRE is studying six further types to supplement its findings.
In addition to the mandatory scheme, local authorities will be given a discretionary power to assist owners of defective houses which meet these criteria but in respect of which the Secretary of State has made no order requiring the local authority to give assistance. This power will enable local authorities to assist where there are local problems.
The local authority associations will now be consulted about these proposals. I shall be asking them to comment before 16 December on a consultation document which is being sent to them today; a copy of which is being placed in the Library. A Bill to give effect to these proposals in Great Britain will be introduced as soon as possible thereafter. Separate legislation will be introduced for Northern Ireland.
The need for expenditure by individual local authorities on this scheme, and on defective houses remaining in their own stock, will be taken into account in determining their housing investment programme allocations.
The BRE has also studied the Smith house, which uses a different system of construction. A detailed report will be published next month. I shall be considering whether local authorities should be under a duty to give assistance to private owners of that type of house.
The Department is writing to local authorities to inform them of the BRE's findings and of the proposals for legislation. Copies of the letter to local authorities and a table giving figures of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses in each local authority area have been placed in the Library.
The Scottish Development Department and the Welsh Office will be writing in similar terms to local authorities there. The Scottish Development Department will also be

writing to the Scottish Special Housing Association and will be holding consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I apologise to the House for the length of this statement and for the fact that the texts of the seven separate reports which have only just been finalised are not yet available for publication, but I wanted to make a statement just as soon as possible. The reports will be published very early next month, and will be sent to local authorities with a request that they be passed on to private owners of these houses in their areas.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: I am sure the Minister is aware that we are not particularly worried about the length of the statement. It is the content that matters, and this is a disgraceful statement. The Opposition had hoped that the Government would be more helpful to those who live in such houses that are defective homes because of the system used to build them. The 16,500 people who have bought their homes will get the support of a 90 per cent. grant, but those who are tenants of local authorities will receive no support.
The Minister's statement means that, under the housing investment programme, local authorities must choose between dealing with the 153,000 defective homes for which they are responsible — the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' report of July 1983 said that the defects would cost £5 billion to correct—and dealing with those that were built by traditional methods. Does that mean that the Minister will punish tenants who have not bought their defective homes, by refusing to give additional aid to the local authorities? Have not the HIP allocations been cut in real terms by 60 per cent. since the Government came to office? Not a shred of hope is offered to the tenants who remain in the projects.
System-built houses were constructed at the request of the Government of the day. I was a member of a local authority at that time and we were urged to encourage system building to deal with the housing problems. The local authorities agreed to do that and subsidies were granted. The Government forced local authorities to build this type of housing. I believe that the Government have a responsibility to all such tenants, but the Minister's statement shows that the Government do not believe that to be so.

Mr. Gow: I do not believe that those who will benefit from what I have said will consider that the Government are behaving unreasonably towards them. I have made it clear that the needs of those who have not bought their homes and therefore will remain as tenants in the public sector will be considered along with other needs when the housing investment programme allocations are made. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement about that programme in due course.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Minister re-examine the way in which he proposes to deal with public sector houses? The Opposition approve of the Minister's suggestions for those who have bought their houses. Leeds has experience of system-built flats which have had to be knocked down. They were built at the request of successive Governments and the ratepayers of Leeds have had to bear the cost. The Minister seems to be suggesting that we repeat that experience. The public sector will suffer, and it should not.

Mr. Gow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he has given to our proposals to assist those who have bought their homes. I shall consider what he has said about the experience of Leeds.

Mr. John Heddle: I hope my right hon. Friend will accept that his announcement, like the statement in September 1982, will be widely welcomed by those who have bought properties in my constituency and elsewhere throughout the west midlands. Will he confirm that those who have not bought their homes but who qualify under the right-to-buy provisions will have their rights transferred to other structually sound properties? Will he also confirm that where such properties have become blighted the owner can apply to the district valuer to ensure that he receives suitable compensation?

Mr. Gow: It would not normally be possible for a tenant of one of the houses to which I referred in my statement to qualify for the right to buy another house, in which he was not living. Any houses of the type mentioned in my statement which are sold by local authorities will reflect the reduced value of the house as a result of the known defects revealed in the report. The powers of the district valuer are set out in the Housing Act 1980.

Mr. Terry Davis: Has the Minister forgotten that one of his hon. Friends told the House at the end of March that he had asked the Building Research Establishment to add Smith houses to the list and that we could expect a report by May? Why will that report be eight months late? Will the owners and tenants of Smith houses in the city of Birmingham be treated in exactly the same way as the owners and tenants of the other houses to which the Minister has referred?

Mr. Gow: Smith houses are constructed not of structural pre-cast reinforced concrete, but of foamed slag concrete blocks. The Building Research Establishment will publish a detailed report of its study of Smith houses. I shall consider whether local authorities should be under a duty to assist private owners of such houses. If the statutory criteria were met, local authorities could use the proposed discretionary power which I have announced.

Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement on this important subject is very welcome and that he is especially to be congratulated on the provisions to ensure that people who have bought council homes which have subsequently 'moved defective will not be penalised? Is it not a sad commentary on Labour Members that, in contrast with the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), most of them seem to feel that those people should be penalised in some way rather than provided for?

Mr. Gow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The House will have noted the contrast between the views of the Labour Front Bench and those of the former Home Secretary.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Minister recall that when he visited Leicester he was presented with a brick from a Boot house, of which there are about 1,500—500 of them in my constituency—nearly all of which are occupied by tenants? Will he undertake to provide extra cash to meet the £29 million

that the council will need to put those houses into order over and above the grossly depleted grants that it will otherwise receive?

Mr. Gow: I well recall my visit to the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency and I remember receiving the brick to which he referred. On the matter of future allocations, he will have to await a later statement.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my hon. Friend realise how very great the welcome will be for his statement about the mandatory right to assistance and the information from the Building Research Establishment that most of the properties are in good condition? Where there are problems, what steps does he recommend to the occupiers, whether the properties are privately or publicly owned, to prevent further deterioration?

Mr. Gow: The advice of the Building Research Establishment is set out briefly in the summary to which I referred in my statement. The reports themselves will be published early next month and will give detailed advice on steps that can be taken by owners in the private and public sectors to diminish the rate of deterioration. There are no practical techniques to halt deterioration completely, but steps can be taken to diminish the rate of deterioration.

Mr. John Cartwright: Will the Minister show similar concern for the hundreds of thousands of tenants in medium and high rise council flats built by industrialised building methods in the 1960s which are now suffering from major defects such as dampness and condensation? As that type of building technique was pressed on local authorities by Governments of both parties, is there not a Government responsibility to help put the problems right?

Mr. Gow: Within the resources available we shall give what assistance we can.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that constituents of mine who have bought Orlit houses will welcome his statement and the speed with which the Department has responded? Does he agree that it is vital that the compensation to local authorities through housing improvement allocations in the rate support grant should be sufficient, as otherwise this will merely turn the screw on local authorities already in a difficult position?

Mr. Gow: I have listened to the advice given by my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Evans: Does the Minister acknowledge that there are defective house types other than those that he mentioned today? Is he aware that I first brought the problem of Parkinson frame houses to the attention of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State two years ago? Does he accept that owners of such houses desperately need Government assistance to put their properties in order? Finally, where does he expect St. Helens council to find improvement grant finance for owners of such houses when it already has no funds to give improvement grants to anyone else?

Mr. Gow: I acknowledge the special interest that the hon. Gentleman has taken in the Parkinson type of house and I have had a meeting with him to discuss the problems in his constituency. It may help the House and people outside if I list the other six types of house that I have


asked the Building Research Establishment to investigate. They are Parkinson, Reema, Stent, Tarran, including the Dorran Myton and Newland variants, Winget and Whitson-Fairhurst, including the Lindsay (Ayrshire) variant.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Like other hon. Members, I have not had time to study the BRE report. Will my hon. Friend confirm what he seemed to imply in his statement—that the problem to which the statement relates was caused by a defect in a material or one material interacting with another and in no way by a defect in building design?

Mr. Gow: It is a combination of the two.

Mr. William O'Brien: Given the importance of his statement, will the Minister assure the House that the cost of grants and allocations to be made by local authorities will be met in addition to the HIP allocations and not included in those allocations?

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman will have to await a later statement about that.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Why was 1960 chosen as the cut-off date? Why is no assistance available for dwellings built subsequently, and why was the BRE not asked to investigate such houses? Does the Minister agree that if all local authorities were to do as mine has done and sell 3,000 council houses financed almost entirely through building society mortgages they would have plenty of money for this and other worthy projects?

Mr. Gow: Prefabricated reinforced concrete houses of this type were not built in significant numbers in the public sector after 1960. I made it clear in my statement that no final decisions about the coverage of the scheme had been taken. It would be possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to widen the coverage if, as I hope will not be the case, any general problem arose with another specific type of house.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: As the Minister has adopted a formula for the compensation of private owners, will he assure the House that the exact monetary equivalent will be available to public owners and if not, why not? Will he also assure the House that reinforced concrete load-bearing structures built after 1960, especially those in tower blocks, are not subject to the same defects?

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman will have to await a later statement about the total resources available for public sector tenants.

Mr. Dick Douglas: That is not good enough.

Mr. Gow: I have already said that the BRE is investigating a further six types of house, but at present we have no reason to believe that there is any defect which goes beyond the category of house that I have described.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in Leeds who have bought defective houses have been shattered to discover that they are now being penalised due to VAT being levied on these essential repairs? They never expected VAT to be levied

when the 90 per cent. improvement and repairs grant was introduced and they have been pressing their case with the Customs and Excise for some months. Can my hon. Friend now tell the House that essential repairs of this kind will be exempt, as his good intentions will otherwise be consistently frustrated by the Treasury?

Mr. Gow: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I shall certainly draw his attention to my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I congratulate the Government on introducing these measures—they will certainly protect the interests of the building societies. Will the same conditions apply to the BISF houses, of which there are many in south Wales and if not, why not?

Mr. Gow: It will be possible for other houses to be included if the criteria that I described are met.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I welcome the Minister's statement about these properties. However, a much wider problem surrounds the Bison system building developments. My authority of Hillingdon has a major problem with them and is pulling down over 1,000 of these houses. Why is it that successive Governments have not helped with the housing investment programme? Will the Minister reconsider the possibility of a public inquiry into that major national scandal?

Mr. Gow: On 6 October I asked local authorities to satisfy themselves, if they had not done so already, that Bison wallframe houses and flats did not present a safety risk, and to report to the Department. About 25 per cent. of the authorities that own such buildings have responded. When all the replies are available I shall consider what further action, if any, to take.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister assure the House that he is speaking for Scotland, too, and does he realise that he is dealing with tenants' fears? If he is trying to calm the fears of those who bought public sector houses, how will he calm the fears of those who continue to live in Orlit houses? Will the Minister give the House a clear, unequivocal undertaking to compensate local authorities for those houses on a replacement cost basis and not on a historic cost basis as soon as possible? Will he move from those houses all the tenants, who may be living in fear?

Mr. Gow: Although the scheme will apply to the United Kingdom and the legislation to which I referred will apply to Great Britain, with separate legislation for Northern Ireland, the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Douglas: The Minister cannot answer the question.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I welcome the steps which the Minister outlined for the private housing sector. In my constituency a considerable number of Orlit houses were built near the shore, where the decay is more progressive because of the action of the sea air. The local authority has been endeavouring to repair those houses but it is without funds to do so and will have, even fewer funds because of cuts in improvement grants. Will the Minister tell the House when funds will be made available to the local authority to carry out essential repairs, and remove from people's minds the fear to which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) referred.

Mr. Gow: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister said that local authorities would be required by law to buy back these houses at 95 per cent. of the defect-free value. Is that the defect-free market value or the market value minus the discount given to the tenant in the first place? Will he provide the same requirement for former council tenants who purchased their homes but who can no longer meet their mortgages and default, and from whom local authorities are not allowed to buy back Their houses, thus making them homeless?

Mr. Gow: We have it in mind that the scheme will involve the surrender of discount during the first five years in the same way as that set out under the 1980 Act, with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar.

Mr. Den Dover: Is the Minister aware that some local authorities, including my own of Chorley in Lancashire, have decided to demolish some of their Orlit houses if they do not receive a Government grant? Will the Minister assure the House that he will impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need to make grants to local authorities?

Mr. Gow: I have made it clear to the House that when defective houses are in the ownership, or former ownership, of local authorities, the authorities' needs will be taken into account, together with other needs, when their housing investment programme allocations are fixed.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Minister agree that he has told the House that he intends to place a statutory duty on local authorities to assist those who purchased their dwellings, but that he cannot give any commitment that resources will be available to local authorities to assist those who remain tenants of their properties? Does he further agree that he has said nothing about what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to do about the rate support grant and the revenue consequences that local authorities will face when they carry out the provisions of the statement?

Mr. Gow: I repeat what I said. Expenditure by local authorities on this scheme and on defective houses remaining in their own stock will be taken into account when their housing investment programme allocations are determined.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Is the Minister aware that Opposition Members are pleased about the effect of his statement on private owners, but that, unlike the Government, they are concerned with all tenants and all owners, including local authorities? Will the Minister seriously consider increasing the housing investment programme allocations to the full replacement value of the houses? Nothing else will satisfy the House. Will the Minister give an assurance that if he does that he will make sure that the increase in local authority expenditure is not subject to penalty?

Mr. Gow: I can only repeat what I have said many times. The needs of local authorities affected by the statement will be taken into account when the housing investment programme allocations are decided.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not true that before the 1960s—and since then for some houses—large private enterprise firms ripped off local authorities and other institutions in the public sector and took taxpayers' money to provide faulty products? Will the Minister tell us precisely what recompense will be made to the local authorities for the replacement cost? What massive profits were made by those companies when they were ripping off the taxpayer, the ratepayer, the tenants and the local authorities? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can also tell us how much they paid to the Tory party in political donations during all those years.

Mr. Gow: I cannot reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question without notice. On the first part of his question, the truth is that when the houses were built in the 1940s and 1950s—and some before the war——

Mr. Skinner: Why not?

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question and I am trying to answer it. The truth is that when those houses were built, our technological knowledge was such that we did not realise that there were inherent defects in them. Now that our knowledge is greater, we have discovered the defects. We shall not make the same mistake again.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the biggest problem in the past decade has been the uncertainty of local authorities. tenants and purchasers about their future? Does he further accept that the weasel words
The need for expenditure … will he taken into account
will do nothing to deal with that uncertainty? Will the Minister take this last opportunity to come clean with the House and say that the Government will provide the money to put right the defects which they caused 10 and 20 years ago through their directions? It is the fault of no one but the Government.

Mr. Gow: I cannot go further than the statement that I have made.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware that many householders are suffering from exactly the same fears and financial problems as the householders whom he mentioned in his statement because of inadequate shale infill beneath their houses? Is he aware that that gives rise to terrible cracking in the foundations, affecting the walls and floors? Is he further aware that many householders, such as some of mine in Thornaby, do not have adequate recourse to aid through the National House Building Council, the local authority or the builder of the house? Will the Minister see whether he can be of assistance in dealing with that problem?

Mr. Gow: I am aware of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. In many houses of the type that he has described it would not have been possible, by a normal survey, to discover the defects that have occurred. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be able to include some houses of the type which the hon. Gentleman has described within the categories that will qualify under the scheme that I have announced. I give no undertaking about that, but it is possible that we w ill be able to include it.

Mr. Jim Craigen: As I am not satisfied with the Minister's statement that the Scottish


Development Department is merely sending out letters to Scottish local authorities and the Scottish Special Housing Association, may I ask what provision is being made for Scottish Office Ministers to make a statement in the House about the differences in Scottish law practice, because today's statement drives a coach and four through the traditional understanding of house purchase, not only in England but in Scotland?

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Heffer: rose——

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has not previously been rising to ask a question. Mr. Heffer.

Mr. Heffer: Is the Minister aware that he and some of his hon. Friends on the Government Benches have been deliberately distorting what has been said by the Labour Front Bench and by my hon. Friends? There is no difference between the view that I expressed and the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). My hon. Friends and I are pleased that those who have bought their homes will receive a 90 per cent. grant. The argument is that it will go only to those who have bought their homes. We have not heard one word from the Government that council tenants who have not bought their homes through local authorities will get assistance. That is the point that we are making. There is no contradiction between what I said and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South said.
The Minister has said three or four times, I think, that the position of local authorities on housing investment programmes will be taken into account. As it appears from Minister's statements previously that there will be a reduction in HIPs, can the Minister give us an assurance that that will not happen? Can he state that, on the contrary, local authorities will receive extra money either to deal with the defects or to establish a replacement programme for these buildings? Can he give an assurance that that will happen, and not hide behind his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Gow: My answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that we shall look forward to reading the Official Report tomorrow, when we can judge whether his views coincide with those of his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees).
The reply to the second part of his supplementary question is that I have told the House already, and I repeat, that the needs of individual local authorities, as a result of the statement I have made, will be taken into account in determining their housing investment programmes. As to the totality of that programme, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement.

Nuclear Waste (Billingham)

Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should be given urgent consideration, namely,
the rapidly rising anxiety among the constituents of Stockton, North due to reports received in the last 24 hours that low-level radioactive waste has already been deposited on an open tip in the Billingham area.
I consider the matter specific because this is an open council tip in daily use. It is situated in close proximity to major housing estates with many thousands of residents, and it is a site frequented by youngsters. I consider it important because the reports have already been confirmed today; they have been validated.
The reports refer to two consignments of radioactive waste being placed on this open council site. The second consignment consisted of two 3-tonne lorry loads composed of 30 metal drums which were placed in a hole under the supervision of a Department of the Environment inspector who had been sent up from London. The 30 drums were covered by no more than 1 m of household rubbish.
I consider the matter urgent because, after the drums had been covered with 1 m of rubbish, the 20-tonne bulldozer which had dug the hole was driven back and forth across the rubbish to compact it, an exercise that may or may not have caused serious rupture to the buried drums and so have irradiated the water table throughout the area.
I consider the matter specific, important and urgent because the dumping of the consignment was authorised by the Department of the Environment exercising plenary powers and overruling the refusal of the local authority to grant planning permission. This practice runs counter in every respect to the assurances given to the House by the Secretary of State on 25 October. Already the site could have become a threat to the health of more than half the inhabitants of the Cleveland basin. I appeal to the House to help allay the justified and justifiable fears of the Cleveland community.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the rapidly rising anxiety among the constituents of Stockton, North due to the reports received in the last 24 hours that low-level radioactive waste has already been deposited on an open tip in the Billingham area.
I fully understand the concern that this causes the hon. Member and his constituents. I have listened carefully to what he has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you are aware from previous comments in the House and from the statement that was made by the Secretary of State for the Environment a short time ago about the dumping of nuclear waste in Billingham that deep anxiety has been caused not only in both the Stockton constituencies, but throughout the whole of the Cleveland area. I should be


grateful if you could give guidance to us as to how we might raise this matter further in the House in an effort to give Ministers an opportunity to allay the very real fears of our constituents.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has heard my ruling. I cannot go further than that. He has been here for many years and I am sure that he knows the opportunities that are available to Back Benchers to raise important matters.

Calling of Members (Newspaper Article)

Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to raise this matter because it affects your judgment in the calling of Members. When I last raised the matter of how you would call representatives of the SDP and the Liberal party, I understood that you gave an indication that discussions were taking place between yourself and the leader of the liberal party as to what your judgment might be. An article has appeared in The Times today in the name of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) which I fear impinges upon your responsibility to the House. I should be extremely grateful if you could give your views on that article so as to allay any fears that might be in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have read the article with care and although to some extent I can understand the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) the article can be read another way. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johston) was complaining about the way in which the SDP leader or leaders were able to catch your eye in comparison to the opportunities that Liberal Members had. I regard it as a possible veiled attack on the Social Democrats by the Liberal party.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 27 October, after a debate on the National Health Service in which no Liberal was called, you said in response to a point of order that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce):
I am sure that the House would consider it extremely unfair if in every debate … the Chair had to call a member from the Social Democratic party and one from the Liberal party."—[Official Report, 27 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 528–9.]
My intention in writing the article that is published in The Times today was to make it clear to the public at large that this part of the House, which represents 25 per cent. of the electorate — 7·5 million people — would, indeed, consider it profoundly unfair if there were not a willingness to call a member of the Social Democratic party and a member of the Liberal party in every debate
In making this case, Mr. Speaker, I was in no way trying to impugn your character or to raise any doubt about your wish to be fair.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make it clear that the Opposition deplore the fact that the hon. Member for Inverness, Maim and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) has gone to the press to make what anyone who has read his article will see clearly is an utterly ill-founded, unwarranted and petulant attack on you. Is it not a fact that, procedurally, the alliance seem to want the penny and the bun and having got the bun they now want to keep it and eat it?
Does not the Liberal article in The Times today show quite clearly that in the previous Parliament the alliance was given extra time for extra seats which it obtained by


the shabby process of political defection — a process which involved and represented not one extra Liberal or Social Democratic vote in the country? Is it not utterly consistent with that precedent, which the alliance welcomed at the time, that their now depleted ranks in the House should be reflected in depleted speaking time?
On the basis of the figures in the article written by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber—he said that the allianace now have only 4 per cent. of the seats in the House — are you not in danger, Mr. Speaker, of being over generous by giving them 5 per cent. of the time as that would represent 25 per cent. more time than they are entitled to?

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Irrespective of the merits of the argument, is it not deplorable that an hon. Member should write an article in a newspaper criticising Mr. Speaker? Criticism of Mr. Speaker in the House is most severely limited—it cannot be made except on a substantive motion. How much more so must any criticism be limited when an hon. Member makes that criticism by writing in a newspaper which has absolutely no connection with the House?
The importance of the case is that the House is the guardian of the subject's rights and liberties and that it cannot discharge that function unless there is respect for the Chair outside the House and within it.
Furthermore, may I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that during the recent general election campaign, most hon. Members were opposed by alliance candidates. That is how they were described on the ballot paper although some were Liberals and others were Social Democrats. I have forgotten which was which in my constituency. Nevertheless they all stood as alliance candidates. If every party in the House is allowed as of right — as is suggested — to have a Front Bench spokesman in every debate and if Privy Councillors are also given a chance to speak, Back Benchers will be completely squeezed out.
It is essential that whoever else is involved in this controversy, it should not be Mr. Speaker. Therefore, might I respectfully suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that he take the initiative in this matter and discuss it with party leaders. I make that suggestion as someone who had the honour in the previous Parliament to hold the office which my right hon. Friend now occupies. That would be the correct way to discuss the issue. It should not be discussed through the Chair, much less through the correspondence columns of the press.

Mr. John Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the whole House has listened with interest to the final point made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John Stevas), If the Leader of the House wants to discuss the proper method of approaching this matter, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) would be only too happy to listen to him.
The article appears in The Times, which is forever telling us and the world that it is the voice of the British establishment. Is there not an issue of whether The Times is involved in a breach of privilege for publishing the article in question?
The issue of right hon. or hon. Members acting as spokesmen on behalf of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties concerns all members of other parties. The Liberal candidate at the general election in my constituency and the Social Democratic candidate for the St. Helens, South constituency had their election material printed at the same address. It had the same layout and used virtually the same words. The candidates appeared on every public platform together. Is it not the case that the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party are in fact one party and that they are therefore entitled to one spokesman in any debate?

Mr. Speaker: I must answer the point of order that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) raised with me. Discussions with the leader of the Liberal party have taken place. I have of course seen the article in The Times today. I have no intention of making any public comment myself either on the article, or on the conduct of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston).

Young People (Employment Opportunities)

OPPOSITION DAY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is an Opposition day and the subject for debate has been chosen by the alliance parties.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I beg to move,
That this House is concerned at the lack of employment opportunities for young people, including those completing the Youth Training Scheme next year; believes that continuing youth unemployment will create dangerous disillusionment; and calls on the Government to undertake an immediate public investment programme to renew Britain's economic infrastructure, and to reverse the cuts in house improvement and repair grant, so as to provide useful employment for thousands of people.
The irony of a Liberal Member moving the main motion cannot but strike the House, bearing in mind the argument that it has just heard. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome this opportunity to discuss the employment opportunities of young people in Britain. It is an extremely important issue.
In the past five years, the traditional methods of youth employment and training have virtually collapsed. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) was told recently in a parliamentary answer that the number of young people enjoying apprenticeships in manufacturing industry has dropped from 150,000 to 90,000 in the past six years. Hon. Members cannot fail to be struck by the sheer numbers involved if they examine unemployment statistics among the younger generation. For the under-18s, the number of unemployed has increased from 62,000 to 188,000 since 1979. Corresponding figures for the same period for 18 to 19-year-olds show an increase from 66,000 to 355,000. For 20 to 24-year-olds, unemployment rose from 139,000 to 652,000. The grand total of under-25s unemployed is now 1·19 million. That is not far short of the total level of unemployment in 1979. Indeed, making an adjustment for the fact that unemployment figures are now calculated differently, the difference between the number of under-25s currently unemployed and the national figure in 1979 is very small. Total unemployment has increased by about 230 per cent. and in the age groups that I have mentioned, by 450 per cent.
This year and last are the first years since records have been kept which show that less than 50 per cent. of those who are aged up to 18 and seeking work have found paid work. In 1979, the figure was 75 per cent. I am sure that most hon. Members would recognise that that is bad. The level of long-term unemployment in the under-25 age group is even worse. In 1978, 55,000 under-25-year-olds had been unemployed for a year; today, there are 312,000.
We are providing the untrained generation. We may even be producing youth who are nearly unemployable in the long term. The social effects are obvious—at least, to almost everyone, although the Government deny their significance. Half the indictable crimes in London are thought to have been committed by those who are under 25. All who have fought elections must realise how

disaffected large numbers of youth are. Hon. Members cannot help but be struck by the greater pessimism in schools compared with a few years ago.
Some statistics show that the health of young people has been affected. I despair about the unemployment problem. If Britain is to do its duty and is to have the economy that can achieve the wishes of hon. Members, during the next 20 or 30 years, or even a century, it must do more to improve the ability and skills of its people. This is the most important factor.
There is no easy way for this country to make a living. Britain must deliver goods and services to people when and where they want them. There is no future in basing the British economy on oil, which, at best, has a short-term effect. Britain does not have the raw materials needed in the long term; it has only the skills of its young people.

Sir Peter Mills: Although I do not disagree with some of the things that the hon. Gentleman says, will he explain why, especially in my area, despite the many youth training schemes, only 40 young people applied to take part when there were more than 400 vacancies? Is this because of the parents, the children or the Government?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is no job at the end of it.

Mr. Penhaligon: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) mentioned that point, because I gave some time to it. Many people on both sides of the House recognise that the Government's general response has been to introduce a series of schemes, dominated by the youth training scheme, to alleviate the unemployment problem. Unionists, employers and hon. Members regard this scheme as an improvement. I no longer believe that the youth training scheme is a satisfactory Government response to criticism of the level of youth unemployment. Better conditions do not mean that we are on the way to a satisfactory situation. The Government aim to provide 460,000 places in the youth training scheme, but an answer to an oral question on Tuesday revealed that about 250,000 young people have taken advantage of the scheme. If one were an optimist, one would have to describe the response as a disappointment; if one were a realist, one would have to describe it as poor.
Even more worrying are statistics that unemployment is highest where the take-up of the scheme is lowest. We must face the difficulties that this is creating. Managing agents responded to the Government's advertising schemes and set up these arrangements. Some are threatening to withdraw. Many have told me that they have suffered considerable financial loss. They set up schemes, assuming that young people would come forward. Some found that fewer than half of the anticipated numbers joined the schemes. The managing agents had based their commitments on the difference between the cost of taking on skilled personnel and the cost of taking on young people—about £600 a head. Government compensation for the loss suffered because pledges were not taken up will not be sufficient to save them from serious financial loss. Some have claimed that their schemes are nearly ruined.
Have the Government seriously underspent in this programme?

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's reference to the management agents. Will he give me some examples?

Mr. Penhaligon: I could give some names in correspondence, but I do not believe that this is the place to list the schemes, because the management agencies are in serious financial difficulties and are thinking of closing. Many young people are involved. They believe that the schemes are long term, viable and credible. I am prepared to advance information if the Minister wishes.
Unfortunately, the Minister did not answer my question about whether we had seriously underspent. If we have, I suggest that some of the unspent money could be used to deal with this difficulty. I am told that some colleges of further education are in a similar position—that is a general comment that has been made to me, I cannot provide names.
The Government concentrated originally on advertising this scheme, and received a marvellous response to their call for work placement sponsorships. They have spent insufficient time explaining the scheme's benefits to young people and their parents. Sadly, many regard this scheme as a second or third-best option for young people who wish to leave school. The talk of cutting the dole if people do not participate in the scheme reinforces the view that this is not a marvellous training opportunity but, in some ways, a second or third-class scheme for those who cannot find something else to do. To be fair to the Minister, I do not believe that that is the Government's attitude, but they must improve the scheme's image.
We need firm decisions on certification. What does certification mean? What will its value be? I feel for the plight of those who participate in these courses and are not taken on by an employer. They suffer worst. It is clear that many employers see the scheme as an opportunity for an extended interview with young people to whom they wish to offer, subsequently, a full training scheme. In a small community like mine or that of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West, people know when a young person is taken on in one of these courses and subsequently rejected by an employer. Young people need some certification of their achievements or they will regret having participated in the course.
Concern has been expressed about the monitoring of the schemes. I have some knowledge of the agents who are running them. I suspect there are such agents in other constituencies. I do not doubt that some schemes are well run, but people have little confidence in others. The youth opportunities programme is suffering badly from what I once described in the House as the free boy, free maid, syndrome. People regard it as a last resort. The Government have not applied their mind to selling the scheme. They have certainly not worked physically hard enough to sell it to the youngsters.
Let us apply our minds to the future. What percentage of those on a youth opportunities programme scheme will immediately find full-time employment at the end of the scheme? I heard the Government mention 70 per cent. The figure is a little optimistic — indeed, some say it is ludicrously optimistic. However, if even 70 per cent. is correct, what opportunities will the remaining 30 per cent. have to continue training if they cannot find a job?
We believe that Britain is a massively undertrained nation. If the great upturn—to which the Government

have so often referred during the past three years—ever comes, we know that the old British problem of lack of skill will immediately impinge itself on the market. Just where in the present scenario do the Government see the next generation of skilled workers for the manufacturing industry? Where are the next generation of building operatives—whether carpenters, masons or plasterers?
I find it amazing that, of the three million unemployed, few have obvious proveable skills to offer prospective employers. I accept that the figure is not zero, but it is a small percentage of the total. The present atmosphere will extend that problem.
The House is aware of the skill-qualification inflation of the past 15 to 20 years. The Manpower Services Commission report states that in 1985 more than half the jobs in Britain will be white collar rather than blue collar. Yet there is evidence throughout the country that, because of short-term financial considerations, youngsters are leaving school and refusing to accept the educational opportunities available to them. We all accept that there are monetary arguments for turning down full-time education. Youngsters feel that they would do better on the dole or in a training programme. We cannot allow that to continue.
When the Minister next meets those who run the youth opportunities programme, will he ask them how many youngsters on the programme could have taken advantage of full-time advanced education? The answer will be considerably more than zero. Jobs will require more rather than fewer qualifications as time goes on. A greater skill input will be required. For example, three quarters of accountants in Britain have attended university, whereas the figure was once less than a quarter. I am a chartered engineer and I know that it is no longer possible to enter that profession except from university. That skill-qualification inflation must be reflected in our attitude and in our willingness to spend money on training.
We must embark upon a two-year traineeship which is a mixture of work, training and education. The mix will vary depending on the skills being acquired. The European Commission's Directorate-General recently called upon all members of the EC to guarantee a two-year training scheme for youngsters. If Benelux, Denmark and France said yes to that, why did our Government say no? Why can our European colleagues offer such skills to their youngsters if we cannot? Britain must follow suit. If the Government will not do that, they owe the House an explanation.
Traineeship needs to be clearly structured. Recognised skills should be acquired over a period in modular form. We all know that West Germany already does that. Let us have skill examinations to prove competence rather than time served. Let us have a form of certification in craft skills for those building up their skill profile.
What youngsters need most of all is jobs. We suspect that they do not readily take up YOP sponsorship because there may be no job at the end of their training. I have no wish to extend the debate into a general discussion of Government economic policy, but is worth noting that is real terms the Government's current investment in capital works and infrastructure is 35 per cent. less than it was in 1978–79. We argued during the election, and will continue to argue until the Government are fed up with hearing it, that there must be investment in housing, water, sewerage,


transport and the environment generally to provide many of the jobs and much of the hope needed by our youngsters.
Our motion makes specific reference to the recent cuts in housing improvement grants. That is typical of the Government's attitude towards investment. However, to be fair, that has been one of their better areas until now. We are disappointed at the Government's attitude. They are not preparing Britain for the future. They are not investing in infrastructure or industry. Most important of all, they are not investing sufficient energy and attention in the problems of our youngsters. Without them, Britain has no economic future. We hope that the House will accept the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I beg to move, leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`fully endorses the Government's industrial and economic policies in tackling the root causes of unemployment through the control of inflation and public expenditure, thereby creating the conditions for lasting increases in prosperity and jobs; and, in particular, congratulates the Government 3n the successful launching of the Youth Training Scheme.'.
I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). I listened carefully to his analysis of the current position. He made a statistical statement. In his position as the Liberal spokesman on employment he has both a difficult and an easy task. It is difficult because he has taken on the mantle of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who was and remains a highly respected spokesman on employment matters, and he has an easy task because he has the freedom to daydream without any responsibility. Several of his remarks reminded me of Oliver Twist, "Please sir, I want some more." That is the constant theme of those who stand on the sidelines. The Labour party is at least consistent in its approach, much as I disagree with it. The Liberal-Social Democratic party alliance is not consistent.
The hon. Gentleman insinuated that the Government did not care about unemployment, especially among youngsters. I suggest to both him and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that, on the contrary, the Government have devoted large sums of taxpayers' money to schemes to help prepare youngsters for work and to promote employment opportunities for them. During the next few minutes I shall demonstrate how we have done that.
Interesting though the hon. Gentleman's analysis was, lasting employment opportunities, not just for young people, but across the board, depend — the hon. Gentleman did not mention this—on British industry being competitive. [Interruption.] If I misquoted the hon. Gentleman, I apologise. He will appreciate that jobs exist only when a product or a service is provided at a price and of a quality which he and I, and hundreds of thousands of other consumers, wish to purchase. As our amendment says, our economic and industrial policies are creating conditions in which industry can achieve that. The signs of success are there. The hon. Member for Bolsover may not like it, but they are there.

Mr. Skinner: The Minister goes on about the need for Britain to be competitive to get these young people and other people jobs, but is there not another factor? When public utilities, local authorities and the rest are starved of money to do many of the things mentioned in the debate, that reduces economic demand and therefore puts more people out of work, thus reducing the prospects of those on YTS getting a job when they have finished the 12 months scheme.
The Government managed to find buckets of money to look after their pet projects, such as the Falklands buying Trident, and defence generally and £17,000 million to finance the dole queue. Last week they were prepared to spend £24 per square yard on a carpet for the House of Commons. The Government have plenty of money to spend if they want to.

Mr. Morrison: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not be grateful if I pursued that line. A country is in a far better and healthier economic position if it is living within its means rather than the reverse, which is what the Labour party wishes.
There are signs of success. Inflation is firmly under control, cost competitiveness in manufacturing is up by 15 to 20 per cent. since early 1981, growth in the United Kingdom's gross domestic product is the highest among European Community states, and in the third quarter of this year retail sales were up by 5·5 per cent. while consumer expenditure was up by 3·5 per cent. on a year earlier. I do not wish to sound complacent, because there is still a long way to go. The hon. Member for Truro and, I hope, all hon. Members will appreciate that, with such signs, we are on our way back from the precipice.
There are also encouraging signs in the labour market. It remains dynamic, contrary to what the hon. Member for Truro was saying. Over 300,000 people leave unemployment every month and about 25,000 people find a job every working day. That is not reported all that often—perhaps the news is too good. The stock of vacancies continues to rise steadily, as it has been doing since mid-1981. Prospects for young people are better and we have evidence that there has been an improvement in job opportunities for school leavers in some areas.

Mr. Alfred Morris: 'The hon. Gentleman will be aware of my concern, and that of other right hon. and hon. Members, over the cruel effects of the youth training scheme on the employment prospects of disabled young people. I gave the House the facts, chapter and verse, as long ago as 25 July. Can the Minister make a more helpful response than he has so far to what is a real and genuine grievance?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's concern for the disabled, as are all hon. Members. I am coming to that point in my speech, and when I do I shall reply to the right hon. Gentleman's point.
As I said, the prospects for young people are better and at 7 October there were 29 per cent. more unfilled vacancies than at the corresponding date a year earlier. Between May and September of this year the careers service placed 20 per cent. more school leavers under 18 into jobs than during the same period last year. These are good signs, but I do not wish to sound complacent.

Mr. Robert Jackson: As we are dealing with statistics, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware


that in my constituency, in south Oxfordshire, out of 1,500 school leavers at the beginning of this month, only 68 did not find either a job or a YTS place and it is confidently expected that all will find places by Christmas? Is that not proof of success?

Mr. Morrison: I am glad to hear that the scheme is going so well in my hon. Friend's part of the country. It reflects what is happening in many other parts as well.
The hon. Member for Truro spoke of the youth training scheme. He said that we had an untrained work force, and he referred to the decreasing number of apprenticeships. I accept that point. However, for the first time ever we have a training scheme for all 16-year-old, and many 17-year-old, unemployed school leavers. To suggest, as the hon. Gentleman did, that we are not interested in training is not proven by the facts available to him. He said that the new scheme was a great improvement on what went before, and I am grateful that he was not grudging in that respect.
This scheme is an enormous step forward in preparing young people for work. The former right hon. Member for Crosby, the president of the Social Democratic party, Mrs. Shirley Williams, is a great supporter of a scheme such as this, and has been for some time. However, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science she failed to convince her colleagues in the Labour Administration that the scheme was worth while. To suggest that the Liberal party and the SDP have the answers is not borne out by the president of one of the two partners in the alliance.

Mr. Penhaligon: Do better.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend was unable to do better.
This is a massive commitment of taxpayer's money. It will cost about £1 billion, together with enormous resources from employers, trade unions, local authorities and voluntary organisations. It is first and foremost a training scheme, not a temporary measure against youth unemployment. The Government are committed to the long-term future of youth training. The YTS is an investment in trainees on behalf of the nation, so that we can become more competitive. It is the first time that any Government have given a guarantee of an early offer of a place on a high quality training scheme to every 16-year-old school leaver without a job.
The hon. Member for Truro did not refer to this, but it has been a major task to find, examine and approve the places required this year. However, since the formal announcement of the scheme in the House on 21 June of last year, just 16 months ago, all the places needed this year have been identified, and all but a few have been approved. The hon. Gentleman said that we were planning for 460,000 entrants. That was the maximum number that we saw as likely to need the scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, on the latest figures that we have—those of 3 November—over 250,000 youngsters have joined, and over 75,000 joined during October, which was greater than the original prediction.
The scheme is about employability and helping young people to be more effective and efficient workers.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Minister telling the House that the 250,000 young people in YOP is what the Government expected by this time? If that is so, why did they tell the managing agents that they could set up 460,000 places?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has consistently talked about the youth opportunities programme. That has gone. He may not realise that it is called the youth training scheme. Perhaps his remarks were based on what was, rather than on what is, which is an enormous improvement. If he is referring to the youth training scheme, I can tell him that we expected more than 250,000 youngsters to be on the scheme at this stage. During October 75,000 young people joined the scheme. That was greater than the number we expected.
As I said, the scheme is about employability, helping young people to be more effective and efficient workers and thus better able to compete in the labour market. If the hon. Gentleman were to come with me to all the schemes that I visit, he would see for himself that the youngsters on the scheme appreciate that fact.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) asked about the disabled. As he knows, we have made special provision for 18-year-old disabled people, and we are studying the matter to see whether we can raise the eligibility age. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept what I say. That is the present position for the disabled. Within the constraints of the demand-led programme, but with a cash-limited amount of money, we are anxious to do what we can to help disabled youngsters, who must have the same rights as other youngsters to take part in the scheme.
The hon. Member for Truro did not refer to another scheme which the Government are running to improve the employability of youngsters, and that is the young workers scheme. The signs are that the Government's policy is working and that young people who had been priced out of jobs are pricing themselves into jobs now. Figures from the New Earnings Survey show that average earnings per week for boys under 18 in non-manual occupations, as a proportion of male adult earnings, have declined by about 10 per cent. since 1979. For girls under 18 in non-manual occupations the decline has been marginally more. It is a clear sign that young people are increasingly prepared to be realistic in accepting lower initial wages in order to secure employment.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the Minister comment on the recent report from Youth Aid, which shows that, with all the expense of the scheme, only 6 per cent. of the new jobs are really new jobs?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman may have seen some other research that was done by independent academics, Messrs. Lynch and Richardson, which shows that youngsters have been priced out of work by having too high wages. That is a different point of view and one that I tend to believe.
To back this thesis, the Government introduced the young workers scheme three years ago as a means of getting young people back into jobs by encouraging employers to recruit more young people into permanent full-time jobs at realistic wages which properly reflect their age, inexperience and lack of training. It is a popular scheme. To date, over 250,000 applications for support under the scheme have been approved.
We have taken other measures too. We have the community programme, which is available for 18 to 24-year-olds who have been unemployed for six of the past nine months. Also, we have the enterprise allowance scheme. I am happy to say that a goodly proportion of those who have taken advantage of that scheme are under the age of 25.
The hon. Gentleman referred to 'cuts' in the housing improvement and repair grants. As he will know, that is part of the motion in the name of his right hon. Friend. I assume that he was talking about the special measures that were originally announced in the 1982 Budget as an encouragement to take up local authority underspending. Those measures were always seen as temporary, and the 90 per cent. grants have been extended once already. We hope that local authorities will continue to give a high priority to the improvement and repair of private sector housing, but for 1984–85, as was the case until the last couple of years, it will be up to them entirely to decide what proportion of the resources available to them to use for that purpose.
With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to catch your eye again at the end of the debate to respond to many hon. Members who want to raise important points.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I hope that the Minister is aware of the financial problems that many local authorities are now facing—including, I am sure, many Conservative-controlled authorities. They are frightened to death over how they are to find all the money for the applications that they have received. Moreover, they will probably have nil building programmes next year.
That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Local authorities know quite a lot about what is going on in their own areas and the problems of young people there. It seems to be the policy of the Government to hammer them at every turn. Perhaps the Minister could bring some influence to bear on the Department of the Environment to help local authorities to finance such things as call-in centres for the unemployed 18 to 23-year-olds. We run several of them on the Isle of Wight. It would help enormously if local authorities had a little money—£1,000 or £2,000—to help with equipment and so on, which at present has to come out of the rate support grant. The local authorities are so penalised that they cannot do these things.

Mr. Morrison: Some of the Left-wing Labour-controlled local authorities, whose rate expenditure is high, are driving out potential employers. This debate is about youth employment, and I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should make the point in the way that he does.
I conclude with one or two general remarks. Last week, in another place, there was a debate on this subject, which I read very carefully. Lord Byers made certain remarks about the youth training scheme which, compared with the speech of the hon. Member for Truro, seemed far more enthusiastic. It might be sensible in future if the hon. Gentleman's party walked forward on one plank rather than on two. In the same debate, Lord McCarthy made certain remarks which, interestingly enough, suggested that he was not looking for a general reflationary policy. I therefore look forward to the maiden speech at the Dispatch Box of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on this subject, so that I can contrast what he has to say with what was said by his noble Friend.
I am sure that the House will welcome the fact that the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party have initiated this debate. All of us, in whichever part of the House we sit, feel strongly about the prospects of employment for young people and their training. I look forward to hearing what hon. Members have to say, and I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the leave of the House, to catch your eye to wind up the debate.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I listened with considerable interest today to the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and to that of the Minister of State. With great respect to them both, although I found the discussion about the training schemes and the like to be exceptionally interesting, I think that they are missing the main point, which was mentioned only at the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Truro in two or three sentences. The real problem that we are discussing today is that there are just not enough jobs for young people. That point must be hammered home in all these debates.
During the past four years — and before — I have listened to numerous people talking about various schemes. We have to get at the core of the problem, which is the whole economic policy of this Government. They have failed to produce the jobs and opportunities for these kids. That is what this debate is about.
In Scotland—I hesitate to introduce a parochial note — about 24,000 young people are currently without jobs. About the same number again are doing jobs on one of the schemes. There is not much joy in that. About 50,000 or 60,000 young people in Scotland do not have the opportunity of a real job. Although these figures are pretty bad, when one breaks them down one discovers that about one-third of the kids have been unemployed for about six months, another third have been unemployed for about a year, and the remaining third have been unemployed for more than a year. That is a damning indictment of the Government's policy over the past four years.
I know many such young people. My children are in their early twenties. I know a great many of their young friends, many of whom cannot find jobs. They have good groups of O-grades, they have good groups of highers, and some have good university degrees, yet a great many of them still cannot find jobs commensurate with their qualifications. It is sad that those youngsters who have worked hard to achieve their qualifications are not able to use their skills and talents. A great many of those young people are beginning to wonder whether it was worth their while to study so hard at school and college to achieve those qualifications when they have nothing to show for it at the end of the day. They become frustrated and embittered. I have seen it in my own home. My daughter is in her twenties. She achieved good O-grades, six highers and a degree from Glasgow university. She was unemployed for a year before she got a job washing tables in a local restaurant.
Young people become even more embittered when they go to be interviewed for jobs and are told that one of the reasons that they are not getting jobs is that they are far too well qualified. It is happening in the Civil Service at the moment. The Minister should tell civil servants to stop saying that to applicants.
If it is sad for those youngsters who have qualifications, it is absolutely tragic for youngsters in our community who cannot pass examinations. I have a special concern for them because, while the first group that I have mentioned become frustrated, the latter group, who do not have qualifications, just give up altogether. They feel completely deserted by society. I have genuine fears about them. They do not blame this Government or the previous Labour Government. They have no time for a democratic process and parliamentary system that has failed to provide them with opportunities for their energies and talents. I fear that if they do not get some Government support they will do what was done in Brixton and Toxteth and take to the streets. I hope that no hon. Member wishes to see that.
In the 1970s the Labour Government introduced schemes that we hoped would help some young people. I take some pride in the fact that I helped to introduce the youth opportunities programme and other such schemes. I did not think when I introduced those schemes with my right hon. and hon. Friends that they would be abused by so many firms which have used them over the past few years as a form of job substitution. I know that the Minister is concerned about the operation of the youth training scheme, but he should bear in mind that many youngsters are cynical about schemes. They feel that they are being used for one year and then thrown on to the scrap-heap and forgotten. I say now what I said when I helped introduce the schemes, that, good though the YOP and other schemes may be, they are no substitute for real jobs. That should be in the mind of every Minister in every Administration. A training scheme is no substitute for a real job at this or at any other time.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the YTS is quite different from the YOP and is a quality training? Does he agree that in some respects both youngsters and, indeed, parents would be well-advised to consider the scheme as an investment in the future? I met a youngster the other day who had given up a job paying £55 a week to go on to the scheme with an allowance of £25 a week for the simple reason that he thought that that was the best way ahead.

Mr. MacKenzie: I accept that the Minister is enthusiastic for the scheme, but I am not so enthusiastic. Young people are cynical about the scheme because it offers training for only a year. That is the lesson that Ministers must learn. Young people become angry when they cannot get a proper apprenticeship or place at college. They become even angrier when they hear supposedly responsible people saying, "Why bother to train them or give them an education"—we have heard this said in Scotland about teacher-training colleges—"when we do not need their skills in the immediate future?" That is a counsel of despair. We may not need their skills now, but one day we certainly shall. We shall find to our cost that, through neglect, we have lost an entire generation, as the hon. Member for Truro said. It is true that young men and women who would be a national asset if only they were properly trained are being neglected.
Steelworks in my area and shipyards all along the Clyde are closing. Apprenticeships are not being offered in steelworks or shipyards, and it behoves the Government to make every effort to ensure that there is not a further

rundown in our basic older industries. If they do not make that effort, we will not have a place in the industrialised world of the future.
When I was Minister of State, Department of Industry, I used to say that if only every small firm in the country would take on one employee there would be a substantial difference in the unemployment figures. I am flattered to think that that is still in Department of Industry briefs for Ministers of State, because they still say it. If the Minister were to go to every industrial, professional and commercial concern and ask them to take on one apprentice or one trainee, a great deal of hope would be given to our young people.
Although some companies have a good record in this respect, others—I include the nationalised industries—are a disgrace. They have a short-sighted and stupid approach to apprenticeships. The president of the CBI is not often quoted from the Opposition Benches, but I was interested to hear his closing comments to the CBI conference in Glasgow the other day. He said:
For unemployment is the worst of it. Be damned with the conventional wisdom that the country will only know high levels of unemployment until the end of the decade. Who stays in the dole queue? Your son? Your daughter? The calm acceptance of more than 3 million people out of work just isn't good enough. Other countries have gone through the recession too and only Belgium has a higher rate of unemployment than we have.
He also said:
Other people, other groups—Government, the schools and universities, the trade unions have their part to play, but at the end of the day the responsibility for what happens rests with us.
Industrialists should heed that. When we tell them that they are not employing enough apprentices they sometimes reply that apprentices can be a drain on their resources. For example, it is said that an apprentice who attends day release college for one day a week costs the firm more than a real craftsman. That betrays a short-sighted attitude, but in case many employers believe it, Ministers should discuss the matter with employers, because it would be a better use of public money to spend more on real apprenticeships than we are spending on various schemes.
For the sake of the nation and its young, there must be a more positive attitude and approach towards real training and opportunities for youngsters. If we deny them that right, we shall have lost the talent of an entire generation.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: The plight of the young unemployed is of great concern to us all, but the motion shows a degree of pessimism to which we are becoming accustomed. Its call for investment in the public sector is considered by some to be the major solution to all our problems. In reality, that is an old approach to a modern problem.
The changes that have occurred in industry in recent years have been dramatic but I fear that, right across the board, in commerce and in the public sector too, we have not been over-clever in our management of change. We have not concentrated on initiating change and then ensuring that it is properly managed and accepted. The private sector has been forced by the recession to introduce many changes, but the public sector still needs to initiate various changes that in many instances it is reluctant to make.
The Government have introduced some positive economic measures to encourage change, especially


training and educational schemes, in an effort to prepare people for the changes that must come. After all, people must be prepared not just for change now but for change in the future, and I was disappointed with the pessimism of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and his claim that everything that is being done is not good enough. He must accept that we have started on major schemes to fill the gap between school and work.
Some schemes that have been available for some time are beginning to show results. The opportunities available under the youth training scheme will enable people to be flexible, for many firms are anxious to employ people who will be able to cope with the changes that are yet to come. We must get away from what happened under the old apprenticeship arrangements. Some apprenticeships were good and others were bad. The same fears have been expressed about youth training—that schemes can vary, like apprenticeships, from the very good to the almost useless—but the new schemes will make people more flexible so that they can move into jobs as they occur.
Even in certain highly specialised areas, new technology calls for flexibility and many jobs today require a short, sharp course of training to enable people to learn new techniques. In other words, they can be trained quickly, even if they must adhere strictly to the tenets of that training. That is different from the approach we adopted years ago when we required a youngster to sit alongside somebody else and learn the job in the process.
I appeal to people in industry and commerce not to pay lip service to training. They must ensure that the people concerned recognise the importance of training, and that applies to all levels. It may be company policy to provide training that is excellent, but low-level supervision can result in that training being watered down. It is the responsibility of those actually doing the job to train and encourage the youngsters coming to them to learn.
There is no need for the sort of despondency expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie). People undergoing training need not think that at the end of the day they will find themselves on the scrap-heap again. We must accept that youngsters on and off schemes will often go into jobs that will last for a time and then finish—temporary jobs—so that they must retrain again. The advantage of the schemes we are now introducing is that people will know that they can learn new skills. Especially will they be able to learn quickly the simpler tasks that must be performed.
We have gone a long way towards encouraging firms, especially small businesses, to appreciate how important it is for people to learn new skills quickly so that they are flexible. I hope that all industrialists will see the importance of training people for the future. That will provide us with a flexible work force, able to move into new disciplines as they arise, and that applies not only to high technology but to the comparatively lesser skills.
Many people are reluctant to change jobs, especially as they get older. One frequently hears people between 35 and 40 saying, "I have worked here all ray life. I cannot change at my time of life." I appreciate that there are exceptions, but people can change, and the schemes that we have introduced are designed to show people that change is possible.
I hope that the trade unions, which in general have not placed any restrants on training, will willingly and enthusiastically accept the schemes as they are introduced into firms. Some people may be despondent about the

opportunities that exist for youth, but the signs are better. The Institute of Directors, according to a press release, said today that firms were optimistic. That is correct because things are improving.
I regret the use of the word "disillusionment" in the motion. People in industry and commerce in years gone by were disillusioned, especially by some of the Jobs that they had to undertake. But at least some people taking part in our modern training schemes will have the skill to look constructively in advance at the jobs that they finally settle into.
Perhaps people were most disillusioned when they woke up to the fact that they could not go on increasing their standard of living without increasing the nation's wealth. The realisation of that came as a nasty shock. Only the Government's economic measures and the encouragement being given to commerce and industry to change will enable us to meet the future with confidence.

Mr. Dave Nellist: In which of the past eight years has anybody earning less than £150 a week experienced an improvement in his standard of living?

Mr. Stevens: There are people in different industries in different areas who have improved their standard of living. It depends on the individual company.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I rise to speak in, I hope, a positive spirit. No hon. Member can look at Britain today without recognising the disaster that unemployment has brought to our people, especially our young people. No one would want to crow about our terrible unemployment problem. That said, I must put: the record straight. We heard the Minister selecting statistics that he thought would put the Government in a favourable light. However, the House should consider the record of the four years since the Conservative victory in the 1979 general election as a disaster—it represents a terrible national decline in our economy. Only this Government are responsible for that. We must look at the record over the four years, not the selective statistics for a particularly good quarter or month.
I remind the House of the question put by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister last week. He said that, on the basis of last month's figures which showed a drop of 10,000 in those unemployed, it would take 16 years to return to the level of employment that we enjoyed in May 1979. We must also bear in mind that the gross domestic product for those four years is down 4 per cent.; manufacturing investment is down by a third; industrial production is down 20 per cent.; unemployment has risen by two million; employment in manufacturing—at the heart of the problem that we are discussing today—has fallen by over 20 per cent.; manufacturing exports are down by 10 per cent. and business liquidations have increased by 65 per cent. since 1979. That is the real context in which we must put the problem of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, today.
We must consider the Government's efforts to come to terms with youth unemployment in this general context before we can debate the subject intelligently. The Government want to have their cake and eat it. We welcome the youth training scheme and the part that the TUC, trade unions, employers and voluntary bodies have


played in setting it up in co-operation with the Government. We are pleased to see a scheme that is at least an improvement—a step forward—on the youth opportunites programme. However, when Labour Members highlight the problems of that scheme at Question Time we are accused of being disloyal to the young people on the schemes. I must make it clear that that is not the case. The Opposition have the right and the duty to point out the scheme's deficiencies when they arise.
The YTS was based on the co-operation of employers and trade unions, but if it changes its character it could lose the support of those who set it up. I must warn the Minister that Labour Members' support for the scheme will soon disappear if it becomes compulsory by the back door—by the withdrawal of benefit from those young people who choose not to take up the scheme but who prefer to remain unemployed. Furthermore, the Labour party cannot approve of the way in which the Government have issued a circular which denies basic rights to young people on the scheme that are accepted as normal for young men and women and indeed for children at school. It is wrong, and it is at the heart of the Government's misunderstanding of young people, that a circular should be issued banning leaflets and advertisements for any political activity and banning young men and women on the scheme from political participation. It is at the heart of a young person's education that he should be exposed to political influences. It is an integral part of the healthy development of young men and women that they should be able to make up their own minds between the various political options before them. To bring in a form of censorship by the back door gives serious cause for concern and I hope that the Minister will think again before he pursues the circular.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman completely repudiating the regulations that his right hon. and hon. Friends put forward regarding political activities on the youth opportunies programme?

Mr. Sheerman: The regulations under the youth opportunities programme were quite different, and the Government's present circular contains emphases that do not reflect the spirit or intention of the regulations under the earlier youth opportunities programme.
However much better the youth training scheme may be than the scheme that went before—this is the main thrust of my argument—it is still not a coherent policy or the training and education of our young people. It is a stopgap, a substitute, for a genuine education training policy for our young people. The Labour party has a well-developed training policy for the many young men and women who are less advantaged than those who may succeed in the educational world, those who have gained qualifications and moved on to university and other forms of higher education. We are talking today particularly about those young men and women who leave school as soon as possible. They are the forgotten generations of Britain. Generation after generation has been neglected. I make no excuses for successive Governments who have neglected these young men and women.
However, the Labour party has produced a document entitled "Learning for life" which forms the basis for a effective policy for such people. A comprehensive youth training scheme is the only genuine alternative. Although we shall bide our time, hoping that young men and women

will benefit from the present scheme, it is still only a stopgap. Our aim must be to achieve a universal, comprehensive and continuing system of education training and employment for the 16 to 19 age group. We want both a comprehensive and well-thought-through policy.
Listening to the Minister, one sometimes wondered whether people in Britain would understand his attitude. The position that exists is completely unacceptable to our young men and women. Present unemployment cannot be accepted. Whatever the Minister says, youth unemployment is still rising. Between July 1982 and July 1983 youth unemployment rose by 15 per cent. — nearly twice as fast as unemployment overall, which rose by 8 per cent. One and a half million young people are now unemployed. Fifty per cent. of those aged under eighteen are unemployed or on special programmes.
Among young people, long-term unemployment — unemployment lasting for more than a year—rose by 34 per cent. last year to 375,000; it is now six times what it was when the Tories took over in 1979. We are talking about the loss of a generation. That generation will not come back. We will not be able to go down on our knees and say, "Please come back. We are sorry; we weren't ready for you." We will not be able to say, "We are sorry that there was no education, no training and no jobs." That generation is moving on — jobless, untrained and unskilled.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: If the Labour party feels so strongly about this, can the hon. Gentleman explain why he and his hon. Friends will not be supporting us in the Lobby tonight instead of abstaining and indeed — as the Opposition Benches show — absenting themselves from the debate?

Mr. Sheerman: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we have our own plans for a debate on unemployment. We cannot accept the Liberal-SDP motion as it stands — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I shall explain shortly what is lacking in the motion.
Earlier in the debate there was reference to the poor take-up of the youth training scheme in one area. The point was also made that in those areas where unemployment was highest, the YTS take-up was lowest. Conservative Members may be naively surprised, but I am not. Those of us who are in touch with the younger generation know that a subculture of youth poverty is developing, and that is the most worrying aspect of our civilisation today. The alienation and hopelessness of young men and women is being expressed not just in the crime rate, but in more significant ways—the inability of those young people to develop stable and lasting relationships, to see themselves as individuals with self-respect or to relate to their families. A sad comment on the horrific murder trial that came to a conclusion last week was the fact that many of the murderer's victims were young men who had left home and had been lost to their families, who did not know where they were. This subculture of youth poverty is producing a large drifting population. That is one of its most horrific results. We would do well to take note of this increasing problem.
It is ironic that when we discuss these problems outside the House, many people apply a common-sense measure. The Prime Minister often talks about the common sense of household economics. Ordinary people recognise that,


in this generation, we have had the greatest natural windfall in the history of this country: North sea oil. Only this Government have enjoyed the tremendous benefits of North sea oil revenues. Without North sea oil income the real bankruptcy of the Government's policy would have been apparent. However, North sea oil has been frittered away on the dole queue. It has been used unproductively to keep people unemployed. At the same time, it is argued—this sounds like common sense to me—that a whole generation's talents, abilities and potential for turning our country into a civilised and pleasant place in which to live have been squandered. The real condemnation of the Conservative Government is that they have frittered away our North sea oil heritage and at the same time they have squandered the talents of our young men and women.
This debate has revealed the Government's complacency about their employment policy. The Government do not understand the gravity of the situation. They do not grasp that there is very little time before the problem will become unmanageable. We must turn our minds tonight to the grave problem that over 1·25 million young men and women under 25 are unemployed and have no future and no prospects. We must search for a permanent solution to that problem.

Mr. Roger King: I shall probably be one of the few genuine indentured apprentices to speak in the debate. I spent five or six years as an engineering apprentice with the old British Motor Corporation. At that period of our commercial and industrial life apprenticeships were considered to be one of the most vital forms of our industrial structure. Indeed, in the 1950s, one still paid the company concerned in order to be an apprentice.
It was not until the later 1950s and the early 1960s that one received anything at all for involving oneself in the hard grind of an engineering apprenticeship. My first wage packet contained no more than about 5½ per cent. of a skilled man's wage packet. Over the past 10 or 15 years the traditional apprenticeship has priced itself out of the market. Not many companies can now afford to take on a full-time apprentice. The wage rates being offered to youngsters on a full-time apprenticeship are far too high to bring in the numbers that we need in industry.
Generally speaking, I applaud the work that the Government have done over the past four years to improve industrial efficiency. There are no easy answers to the problem of unemployment. What the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has said is all very true. We do not want to see youngsters unemployed, but the hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge the predicament in which the country finds itself as a result of improvements in industrialisation and industrial efficiency. In my constituency, 10,000 car workers can produce twice as many cars as 20,000 produced a few years ago.
Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said can help to stem the historical tide that leads us to believe that that is to be the normal course of events for our industrial capacity. Gradually, the influence of the robot and technical advances will bring about an enormous sea of change for those who have been employed during the past 20 years or indeed at any time in the history of industrial activity in this country.
It is against that background that we must consider the training schemes that are introduced to prepare people for

the jobs and needs of tomorrow. There should be much more of a partnership between education and the commercial sector. I was gratified to read in the report of the Institute of Directors that only about 2 per cent. of those polled wanted any cuts in our education system. However, about 30 per cent. wanted more cuts in the National Health Service. That low percentage figure for education is indicative of the feelings of both management and employers, in that they want this country to have a worthwhile education system which does not end at the age of 15 or 16, but continues throughout life.
Many of us even will need to be retrained several times in our working lives. Some people will have to be retrained again and again at some stage in their lives. Given the multiplicity of bodies now springing up, it may be necessary to set up some sort of training commission to oversee the training of those who have left full-time education.
The youth training scheme has met with many criticisms, but it at least gives youngsters an opportunity to gain some experience in the ways of the commercial world. It is said that take-up has often fallen short—including sometimes in my constituency—of the target that was envisaged. Perhaps the financial inducement should be tilted in favour of encouraging people to learn the disciplines of industrial and commercial life. I am not suggesting that unemployment benefit should be stopped, but perhaps a greater financial inducement could be given to those on youth training schemes, while possibly slightly reducing unemployment benefit.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the hon. Gentleman not find it a very strange paradox—the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon)—that although the Government say that we are moving into a new technological era and that people should be encouraged to take up further education, the incentive is for them to join youth training schemes rather than to go into further education? If they join a youth training scheme they will receive £25, but they will receive nothing if they go on to a college of further education. Is that not a strange paradox?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that there is another debate and that interventions during short debates prolong speeches and make it more difficult for me to call those hon. Members who wish to speak.

Mr. King: Earlier, I was talking about a training commission. I believe that we should look closely at those who opt to continue in full-time education. If we are prepared to budget for 460,000 places on the youth training scheme and the take-up falls short of that, there may be some latitude so that we can give some financial inducement to those who want to pursue a course in higher education. I would support that idea.
There are fewer and fewer unskilled jobs in this country. In the west Midlands, a recent poll carried out by the chamber of commerce showed that 20 per cent. of manufacturing companies in the area were short of skilled workers. That fact should be given due attention.
When we have looked at all the conventional ways of reducing the number of those on the unemployment register, we should consider the long-term prospects. Many people ask me what should be done about the retirement age. We should consider a long-term policy. For example, we could decide to reduce the retirement age


from 65 to 60 by the year 2,000, by lowering it every four years by one year. That would be far preferable to reducing the retirement age to 60 at a stroke and thinking that that would be a cure-all for the problems of unemployment. The cost of doing that would be far too high.
Let us consider the short and medium-term possibilities. I am not very keen about the regional aid programme, on which the Government spend about £1·3 billion a year. A significant proportion of that sum should be transferred to capital works programmes. Railway modernisation and the building of some 2,000 new diesel rail cars—which British Rail claims it needs—would provide far more jobs than can be provided by handing out large sums of Government money to so-called regional aid areas. Massive chemical plants can be put up at the cost of £100 million to employ only 50 people. We have had regional aid for 20 years, and I should have thought that those wanting to move to such areas would have long since done so. I hope that a switch will be made to capital works programmes. No more money is necessarily required. There should merely be a switch and a change of emphasis.
We are moving into the era of the self-employed man, the one-man business and of the person who can use his skills to decorate a house, to turn his hand to plumbing and to a thousand and one other small self-employed jobs. Greater encouragement should be given to that, by giving youngsters on the youth training scheme a good range of skills which will be of practical use in future years.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and I agreed with many of his points, particularly in the latter part of his speech.
Hon. Members generally agree that unemployment is one of the two or three key problems of the age. Unless we solve that problem successfully, the stability and perhaps very nature of society will be threatened. I think that there is common agreement on that. Youth unemployment at once gives rise to most emotion and to the most concern in the long term. That is only right. It also causes anger, as has been shown in one or two interventions today. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, we are in danger of creating not just one lost generation but a whole succession of them.
The problem should therefore be studied in that context. We must consider Britain's general economic situation. Whatever we may do, if there is nothing at the end of our training schemes and initiatives, they can be of no value. Therefore, it is correct to mention, as we do in our motion, the need to stimulate the economy and to provide jobs. It is only right to blame this Government for the high- level of unemployment and the weak economy. I remind the House that, of the top six OECD countries, Britain has the highest rate of unemployment.
However, it is wrong to do what the Labour party did at the last election and pretend that with a wave of the wand we can solve the problem tomorrow. That is not so, and it is untrue, and probably impossible. We must consider the real problems of unemployment. I should like all hon. Members to recognise that the problem is both long term and structural. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Northfield that, whatever Government are in

power, the impact of our declining position in world trade and of the automative revolution means that our society will probably have an endemic and structural high level of unemployment. I wish that politicians of all parties would stop telling people at general elections the old lie that if they give them their votes, they will give them back their jobs tomorrow. We cannot do that, and that should be recognised — [Interruption]. I should say that the Conservative party was the most guilty of using that old lie in the 1979 general election. The Conservatives produced an appalling poster entitled "Labour isn't working". The clear inference was that voting Tory meant that the unemployed would get their jobs back. We must try to break out of the pattern where the party in office tries to find better ways of hiding the unemployment problem while those out of office try to find more exquisite methods of complaining about unemployment. We must address ourselves to changing the structure of our society and introducing the long-term initiative necessary to cope with the problems of unemployment. I am not referring to short-term palliatives.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that the Government regard the youth training scheme as a long-term programme. I wish that everything that took place under the scheme carried such a commitment. I believe that the scheme is regarded by many young people, and others, as a means by which the Government can get off a political hook, rather than as a serious attempt to tackle the problem of youth unemployment.
We tend to regard youth unemployment as a problem produced by the statistics of the Department of Employment. Hon. Members must be cautioned about that. We seem to think that youth unemployment ends at 18, because that is all that the Department of Employment discusses. The reality is that a hidden mountain of youth over 18 and under 25 are unemployed. About 30 per cent. of adult unemployed in Somerset are under 25. I regard those as young people, but they do not appear in the Government's figures or, with some exceptions, in most of the Government's main training schemes.
The Minister referred to the community programme and I recognise that it has a part to play, albeit small, in dealing with youth unemployment.
I was astonished to hear the Minister claim, with some self-satisfaction, that the youth training scheme was a success. The take-up figure on the scheme is little more than 50 per cent. of the planned total.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The hon. Gentleman must put his figure into context. The take-up rate is at present way above 50 per cent. of where we planned to be at this stage—460,000 entrants throughout the year.

Mr. Ashdown: The Minister's reply seems to imply that he would be happy if other people joined the scheme at a later stage. A constant complaint from county councils and management agencies is the problem of tying in late joiners. It is difficult to believe that the Minister has a long-term plan which will reach anything approaching the proposed target at the end of the scheme if in reality it is difficult to become a late entrant in the scheme.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) asked why so few young people had joined the scheme. The lack of entrants is one of the scheme's fundamental problems. The reality is that so few young people are joining the scheme because, whatever the


Minister or the Government say, young people do not regard it as a bridge from school to work but rather—and with some justification—as a stepping stone from school to the misery of the adult dole queue.
The lack of quality of places on the scheme is its chief fault. The Government have made no attempt to ensure that the supervisors in the Manpower Services Commission can ensure that the quality of training is at the required standards. The supervising bodies of the scheme are hopelessly and inadequately equipped to deal with the task. Not only do young people perceive this problem; parents perceive it too. Many parents in my constituency say to me, "We do not believe the scheme is working; that is why we do not support it". Despite the £25 per week incentive in the scheme, many young people perceive it to be so valueless that they prefer to continue in some form of further education.
The scheme also offers little to achievers. Many of our young people who are achievers will not join the scheme because they recognise that it has little to offer. A lack of presentation and communication exist between the Manpower Services Commission and those who wish to join the scheme. That is not surprising because the scheme was rushed in. It has suffered from inadequacy of preparation, of presentation and especially of training for those who run the scheme. I gain the same impression wherever I go. I have occasionally heard some Conservative Members say that the problem is somehow caused by the young people themselves. I believe that the YTS structure produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. It seems to be creating a group of young people as feckless as the Tories allege them to be.
Not only are the young who partake in the scheme dissatisfied. The MSC has created dissatisfaction among the managing agents. There has been a lack of consultation by the Manpower Services Commission. With the change from district manpower boards to the area manpower boards the educational representatives were reduced from two to one on the MSC boards. The YTS was then viewed by many of the managing agencies in the county councils as another instrument for attacking local government. The inefficiency of the MSC — I worked with that body before my election to the House—has created problems for managing agents.
There is inadequate provision for the rural areas. I have written to the Minister several times about this. The Minister's reply to my letter stated that the Government were considering what could be done to assist the operation of the YTS in the rural areas. I shall be interested to hear whether he refers to that matter when he winds up.
Those who run the scheme suffer from lack of permanency. Many of those who work for local authorities and run the scheme are subject to temporary contracts of employment which inevitably produces instability. Whatever the Minister thinks to the contrary, some county councils in the south-west of England, where the majority of county councils support the Conservative party, are nevertheless seriously considering whether to continue as managing agents under the scheme. That shows how they regard the scheme.
Some of the industries which have been encouraged and even pressured to take up a large element of the placements under the scheme are now in difficulties because the number of trainees working for them is significantly below the figure for which they budgeted. Some manufacturing firms are suffering severe cash flow problems. Is the

Minister prepared to use funds to bail out some of those firms which, in good faith and good spirit, sought to carry the scheme forward but who now find themselves in financial difficulties?

Mr. David Alton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does the Minister agree that a problem has occurred in those local authorities where trade unions — especially NALGO—have decided to black the youth training scheme? Would it not be useful if some guidance were given to young people in areas where the trade unions have blocked the YTS scheme from proceeding and where youngsters are therefore consigned to on the dole?

Mr. Ashdown: I am happy to support my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister will take that up.
We must also consider what happens to young people who are not and never will be employed. In this context the youth service has a major role. I hope that the Minister will press his colleagues to come clean very soon about the action to be taken on the Thompson report. We were told a year ago that the matter was under consideration and that there would shortly be an announcement. A similar answer was given on 1 November. The Government must now come clean about this as the role of the youth service in relation to young people who will never be employed is crucial to society in the future.
There is a desperate need for a special advocacy for young people. One of the most significant recommendations in the Thompson report was that there should be a Minister for youth. That is vital for the future. That special advocacy is crucial to co-ordinate activities in this area for the future.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am sure that many hon. Members share my distress that only 3 per cent. of our number could be present for this very important debate. I hope that there will be a better attendance the next time we discuss these matters.
I have studied the motion with some care, but I do not feel that it does a service to our young people. It does not meet the challenge of youth employment and I find it impossible to support the motion as it stands. I am, however, able to support the Government amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am able with enthusiasm to support the Government amendment.
I am sure that we all share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) for the concept of training. There was nothing controversial in that aspect of his speech. He did not, however, do justice to the question of how we can create new jobs. That is the central issue before us.
A senior member of the Labour party said some months ago:
Young people want us to be honest with them—they have had far too much deception from politicians. We must not promise the youth of this country anything we cannot deliver. We will fight for but we cannot guarantee everyone a job and you know in your hearts you cannot and you should not say so.
We could all learn from that. When the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) refers to the "proper" policies of the Labour party now I hope that he is not including, as I suspect that he is, the very policies that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) argued against on that occasion at the Labour


party conference. If that kind of package were introduced — legislation to guarantee everyone a job, training at trade union rates, free travel to and from training, and so on—the spending spree entailed would be a recipe for disaster and would do nothing for youth employment. Nothing would be more likely to create the "dangerous disillusionment" referred to in the motion.
The key to the problem lies, first, in increased prosperity—that is why I am able enthusiastically to support the Government amendment—and, secondly, in improved training and education. We must welcome the success so far of the ambitious youth training scheme on which the Government are spending £1,000 million.
I have seen for myself the success of the scheme in Norwich. I have visited a number of institutions and factories in which the scheme is operating successfully. In many cases, people learning skills on the scheme have been offered jobs as a result. Therefore, no one can convince me that the scheme is not helping young people to find work. In Norwich they are doing just that as a result of the scheme.
On Monday, the Eastern Daily Press stated:
More than 3,000 young Norfolk people have joined the Government's new Youth Training Scheme
Manpower Services Commission officials in the area said that
dozens of young people in the county were joining the scheme every day.
They further stated:
We undertook to offer a YTS place by Christmas to every one of this year's 16-year-old school leavers without a job … We are confident that we will meet this guarantee in good time.
One aspect of the scheme is less satisfactory. In Norfolk, and perhaps in other parts of the country, there is not sufficient take-up by employers to encourage eligible employees to take part in the scheme. I intend to discover the reasons for that. The life skills aspect should also be examined more carefully. There are serious criticisms of that aspect, but time does not permit me to go into detail now.
The Government must do more to improve the quality of scientific and technical training. That is bound to improve employment opportunities for young people. It is highly unsatisfactory that only half of our young people have systematic vocational training of any kind when the comparable figure in Germany is 90 per cent. and in France 80 per cent. We must examine this aspect much more carefully and find ways to increase the training element in preparation for employment. I welcome moves to increase science and technology courses in our universities and other areas of higher education even if it means a decline in some of the less rigorous disciplines which often leave graduates high and dry with qualifications unsuited to the jobs on offer.
Finally, we must resist the temptation to exploit the difficulties of young people for party political ends. I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that we must all avoid that. We must seriously continue the debate that we have started today. We must consider how to increase wealth as that will provide jobs, how to increase opportunities for young people and how to improve training even more than the Government have done so far, although there is no doubt that what the Conservatives

have done is the envy of all Opposition Members, many of whom must wish that they could have done the same. I therefore support the Government amendment.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The Minister of State, Department of Employment, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said on 7 September:
The Youth Training Scheme is a permanent advance on the road to economic recovery and not a temporary substitute for the dole queue".
On 19 October the Minister of State, Department of Employment, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), on a visit to the Bristol area, said of the youth training scheme:
It is providing durable training quality and it is providing the kind of hope which was fast running out for successive years of school leavers.
Earlier in the debate the Minister was asked what percentage of young people leaving training schemes actually found employment. I received a written reply today from the Department of Employment showing that 38 per cent. of young people leaving training schemes this year found employment. Last year and the year before, the figure was 39 per cent. In 1979 it was 54 per cent. For a Government spokesman to describe the initiative on training as giving hope to young people is the cruellest joke that could be perpetrated on 16 and 17-year-olds.
The Government hold out the carrot that if a young person goes through a year on the training scheme somehow the golden horizons will open, with all the wonderful things advertised on the box between 6 pm and 8 pm—overseas holidays, fast cars, luxury furniture. They suggest that those are the things to aim for and that training and skills are the way to achieve them. At the end of the scheme, to say to two out of three trainees, "Sorry, the game's up. You are back on the dole, where your older brother and sister were before you," is elastoplast politics. It is putting sticking plaster over a social abscess and claiming that there is a veneer of training to help young people.
The Government have brought forward such initiatives during the past three or four years for three reasons. First, they have sought deliberately to massage the dole figures and, according to the Department of Employment, to take over a third of a million people off the dole figures. Secondly, they have sought to cheapen the rates of pay for youth labour. The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), the former Secretary of State for Employment, said that boys and girls were too expensive to employ and that they must price themselves into jobs. Perhaps that is why the Government refuse to increase the training allowance. Will the Minister tell the House at what stage he would consider increasing the pitiful £25 allowance on the YTS to a level at which young people can live?
Even before the youth training scheme, and its forerunner the youth opportunities programme, cheapened labour, the rates of pay, negotiated over decades by unions in different industries for apprentices of comparable ages with YTS trainees, were by no means perfect. British Telecom technicians earned £61 a week, British Airport apprentices £57, ICI apprentices £54, apprentices in the chemical industry £52, apprentices in British Rail workshops £50—there will not be many apprentices left in that industry, after the savage spending cuts at Shildon


and Horwich—apprentices in the gas industry received £49, in the water industry £48, in engineering £45, and in electricity £44.
Those are not huge sums, nor massive amounts of money. Most hon. Members earn more in a day at their ordinary rate of pay. The managing director of the British Oxygen Company, Richard Giordano, earns £11,000 a week for selling fresh air. How then can Tory Members tell British youngsters that they are pricing themselves out of work?
Attempts to cheapen youth labour are made for economic and political reasons. The present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made the following remark. which he has chosen not to repeat in the past 18 months. He said that he had a vision of factories in which trainees could produce goods at such a high rate of production that imports from the far east, for example from Singapore, would be unnecessary. Those countries rely on a lack of trade unions and on cheap labour to produce goods cheaply. The right hon. Member saw the day when British youngsters could compete with those in the far east on equal terms. The Government are planning to drive down the wages of young people and to end the apprenticeship system in Britain.
ICI has taken on trainees under the scheme at Wilton on Teesside. There used to be 50 proper apprentices working under the terms of a negotiated national apprentice agreement. This autumn the company introduced a pilot scheme, and instead of employing 50 apprentices it will employ 192 school leavers as trainees. Obviously, at the end of the first year the company will choose 50 of the 192 trainees to go on to a second year's apprenticeship. The first year's apprenticeship was previously paid for by ICI, but is now being paid for by the taxpayers. Three quarters of these youngsters will have to go back on the dole.
Trainees in ICI used to get £54 a week. Now the company will offer only £40 a week. The scheme does nothing to solve unemployment, because the same number of apprentices are taken on in the second year as would have been taken on under the old apprenticeship system. The 142 young people working for ICI, having been given the illusion that they were competing for a job, and having gained skills in ICI, will go back on to the dole queue.
The number of apprentices is falling. In engineering they decreased from 29,000 in 1967, to 14,000 in 1981 and to 10,300 in 1982. Last year, in Coventry there were 238 apprenticeships in engineering. Ten years ago that city was known as the richest working-class city in Britain, the prosperity of which was built on the skills of the workers in manufacturing and engineering.
One of the reasons why the YTS will destroy the traditional apprenticeship system over the next two years is the additionality concept. A firm that used to have two apprentices will take on three YTS trainees and claim all five as YTS trainees and gain £1,950 from all five. The apprenticeship system will disappear as the Manpower Services Commission withdraws its sponsorship from apprentices.
We have heard little about the conditions under which youngsters have to work in the schemes. The House is aware that Opposition Members have exerted pressure in recent weeks and exposed the dangerous conditions in which many youngsters are working under the YTS. Under the YOP and YTS, 19 youngsters have been killed. There was an accident rate of 250 per month. Many of those

accidents were in places where the supervision was inadequate and where the factory inspectors had not investigated the machines and conditions in which the youngsters were working.
We have had a belated response from the Government. In July of this year, after pressure from employment appeal tribunal rulings, they came along with regulations to bring trainees within the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1968. We heard this week that they intend to do the same on health and safety. That is a half step forward, of which the House is not unmindful. However, bringing the youngsters under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which they should have been under five years ago, will not get away from the fact that unless the Health and Safety and Factory Inspectorates inspect every workplace where youngsters work, the tragedies of Sheffield, Strathclyde and south Wales will be repeated.
The Government are turning the clock back in their approach to youth and employment opportunities for young people. Hon. Members have said that the economy is the bedrock for discussion on training and employment. One fifth of manufacturing industry has been destroyed under the Government, compared with 11 per cent. in what we are told was the greatest crash in the economy between 1929 and 1931.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said that the solution was to look towards a future of one-man businesses. Has he not seen the figures? In the past year 1,000 businesses a month have gone bankrupt because of the crisis in the economy, which is exacerbated by the Government's measures. There has been a 36 per cent. fall in investment. We invest less in industry now than we did a quarter of a century ago. That is not because of a lack of money. About £32 million leaves the country every day for South Africa, Brazil, Korea and Argentina, where trade unions are illegal and the same slave labour wages are paid as many Conservative Members would like our youth to receive.
In reality, there are 5 million people on the dole They are offered no future and no employment prospects. Perhaps this fear has not been voiced in today's speeches, but it has been written about in the serious journals of capitalism and in articles by the representatives of that strand of society in the Chamber. There will be social explosions in the 1980s as unemployment continues to rise.
About 6 million people live in damp houses arid 9·7 million people do not get even one week's holiday away from home. Such social conditions will produce explosions that will dwarf what happened in the 1930s and the events of 1981 in Brixton, Toxteth and Moss Side. That is why the Government have taken the children off the streets and off the dole and put them into schemes which will not offer employment at the end of the day. In Coventry there are more under-25s who have been unemployed for more than a year than the percentage for the west midlands or Britain as a whole. A third of the under-25s in Coventry have been on the dole for over a year. Could Government Members come to Coventry and explain to those who are on the dole queue, as I was for three years before coming to the House, that their prospects of getting jobs are laughable if they have been on the dole for more than a year because factories are closing down week after week and month after month?
What are the young people being trained for? Why should the Government create the best trained dole queue in Europe? Why do they not bring forward genuine measures to create jobs? The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) spoke disparagingly about Labour party policy, adopted at its conference this year, of a guaranteed job for every school leaver. That is the aim of the Labour party and it is the only realistic thing for which to ask young workers to campaign.
I welcome the moves by trade unions in recent months to organise the YTS trainees into the trade union movement, to try to stop the worst aspects of exploitation and to aim for trade union rates of pay for the apprenticeships, which the schemes attempt to replace. In some factories in Coventry and elsewhere the trade unions are achieving success.
It was said earlier in the debate that the only way forward was to stimulate the economy. There are three ways in which money can be found to stimulate the economy. It may come from the employers, it may come from the workers or it may be printed by the Treasury. The British economy can sell only 70 to 80 per cent. of what it is capable of producing. Therefore, money will not come from there to stimulate investment in new manufacturing industry. It may be available to buy British Telecom or British Airways, or to fund a few more share speculations, but it will not be available for large-scale new investment. If it is taken from the workers, where will they, with their lower living standards, get the money to buy what industry produces? If more money is printed we will end up with inflation such as the Tory Government produced in the early 1970s.
Under capitalism, which the Government Benches represent, youngsters cannot be offered jobs. The Government cannot guarantee that 5 million people will find permanent work. That task remains for the trade union and Labour movement, which will create a planned economy with shorter hours and a lower retirement age. We should not have to wait until the year 2000 for a lower retirement age. My grandfathers did not live long enough to enjoy their retirement, because of the industries in which they worked. A target of a retirement age of 55 would create hundreds of thousands of jobs; so would a 35-hour week in industry. If industry enjoyed similar holidays to those for Members of Parliament, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created. I do not expect such benefits to be given easily by the Government. It is up to this generation of young workers to join the Labour party and the trade union movement and take them from the Government.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has given a splendid example of what has been wrong with this country for so long—a failure to understand the needs of others, and intolerance. The hon. Gentleman knew that this was a short debate and that quite a number of Members have been present throughout and wish to speak. Yet he rambled on for 15 minutes and told us very little.
We need few lessons about trade unions from hon. Members like him. Many of us have been active in and have held high office in trade unions. For the hon. Gentleman's information, when I started my training,

having left school at the early age of 14, I was earning in real money terms less than the youngsters are earning today at £25 per week. Much has changed since I left school when there were plenty of jobs for young people because they had not priced themselves out of the job market. That alone, of course, is not the reason they are out of the job market, and I would not for a minute suggest that that is so. It is one element. Another is the lack of demand caused by the world recession; also, for many decades we have been ill-equipped to face the challenges of the real world.
Those challenges must be turned into an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies which have existed for many decades in the way we prepare young people to cope with the real world of tomorrow. As someone who has spent almost all of his adult life in the training of the young, I take seriously what we should be doing for them. The changes that are being introduced in the school curriculum, particularly in Scotland, are a first and most important step along this road. These changes are long overdue to prepare young people for the real world, not the world of the academics but the world where jobs are and where wealth can be created.
The youth training scheme, a most imaginative scheme that has come in for so much unnecessary criticism, should provide the basis on which we can build to restructure all training. In particular it should provide the basis for all apprentice and skill training, with training allowances being paid as in West Germany. It has worked there since Bismarck. Why can we not learn from others and do what they have done? That is one of the reasons why there are fewer under-25s out of work in West Germany than in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The United Kingdom is about the middle of the European unemployed under-25s league.
I should like to see more investment, both in schools and in training programmes, in the tactile skills, the human relation skills and the communications skills because these are all vital and important for the world of tomorrow. To do this the scheme would need to be extended from one year to a minimum of three years, with the second and third years concentrating on particular rather than on general areas of training. If we are seriously considering doing something constructive for the young, as I believe we all are, and if at the same time we want to see United Kingdom industry becoming much more competitive, investment in a three-year scheme would be more rewarding than the massive grants or tax allowances which we give to all sections of industry.
It is no good Opposition Members wringing their hands about the high level of unemployment. Labour policies have contributed massively to the United Kingdom's problems. I remind Opposition Members what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) said in Eastbourne on 30 June 1978:
Inflation is the main enemy because inflation is the mother and father of unemployment.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is no longer on the Labour Front Bench and we can see a change in emphasis today in the way in which the Labour party approaches these problems. The Labour party has contributed to the problems by believing in the myth that Governments can create jobs and that Governments alone can keep jobs in being.
Customers create jobs. Anyone who has managed an enterprise knows that and that if customers are lost, jobs


disappear. That is why the solution to the problem of unemployment, especially youth unemployment, lies in keeping inflation down. We should also encourage training and stop bailing out poor management and propping up out-of-date work practices. The current ghastly recession has given us an opportunity to right the ills that have troubled us for so long. Many Governments have attempted to solve those problems but this is the first to do anything constructive about training the young.
Those of us who have been involved in training from the early days when a Conservative Government introduced training boards realise what a massive investment for the benefit of young people these training schemes represent. I remind the House that there is no simple answer. Those who present simple answers have simple minds.

7 pm

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: This has been a useful and interesting debate which has captured the interest of those hon. Members who have been here. I am sure that it will also prove interesting to people outside. Right hon. and hon. Members who sit behind the Liberal and Social Democratic Benches have been notably absent during the debate and they will be notably absent from the Division Lobbies later.
I agree with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in some of his criticisms of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), but I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East on having been here for the entire debate. He advanced his views of the plight faced by many young people forcefully. He also argued strongly about the defects in many of the schemes that the Government provide for young people. He made a valuable speech. It is a pity that similar views were not expressed by more of his hon. Friends. I strongly regret the fact that so few Labour Members spoke, even though they usually indulge in rhetoric.
I shall deal with three topics. The first concerns overall responsibility for education and training, the second concerns the new training scheme and the third, which refers to the latter part of the motion, is concerned with an investment programme which the alliance parties suggest is necessary if we are to give young people hope for the future.
It is becoming increasingly obvious through the development of the youth training scheme and other Manpower Services Commission activities, which have been extended by the present and previous Government, that we have a dual track system of training. The Department of Education and Science and local authorities have some responsibility but so, too, do the Department of Employment and, occasionally, others.
The alliance believes that the time is overdue for education and training to become the responsibility of one Department so that duplication and lack of co-ordination can be overcome. In the past few months a technical and vocational scheme has been launched. It appears to be excellent and I am sure that the hon. Member for Tayside, North, would welcome it. It will make educational courses much more relevant to the vocation that young people follow after leaving school. It is not a Department of Employment initiative, however. Putting micro-computers in all secondary schools is another excellent scheme but that has been the initiative of the Department of Trade and Industry. Therefore yet another Department

has become involved in a vital part of youth training. There is an overwhelming case for providing one Department that has responsibility for education and training.
I shall now deal with the youth training scheme. I should like to clear up any illusions that the Minister might have with regard to a speech which was made in another place by a Liberal peer. The Liberals and Social Democrats welcome the scheme as a good first step in the right direction. However, it is only a first step. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Tayside, North say something with which the alliance strongly agrees—it should become a two-year or three-year scheme. We understand that it is new and do not blame the Government for its teething troubles, but we hope that it will go further. It is vital that we get closer to the German model and that of many of our other competitors. There, training is an accepted part of life. It is not possible in only one year to train people to the level we want for the industries that we hope to have.
We should move towards a modular system. The youth training scheme can be criticised for not dovetailing adequately with other apprenticeship and training schemes. Moreover, we believe that the youth training scheme should not be confined to young people. Older people of perhaps 30 or 40 should be able to take the same module. Working life will become more changeable and people will have to change jobs. It will not be only young people who will want the training provided by YTS.
The alliance would also like to improve monitoring of the quality or standards of the scheme. It should be possible to have it recognised by employers and education authorities as a certifiable scheme which is accepted as providing a minimum recognisable standard of training. I hope that the Minister will comment on those suggestions and that the Government will recognise YTS as a first building block on which they will build. We should have a much more comprehensive system.
My final point concerns an investment programme. We need to train young people so that they have skills with which they can obtain jobs, but they also need to be given some hope that they will be given an opportunity to use their skills. There is no doubt that one reason why more young people are not joining YTS is that they are disillusioned and despair of obtaining employment at the end of their training. If hon. Members consider that 51 per cent. of young people who attend youth opportunities programme courses cannot find jobs after that training, they will not be surprised by the attitude that I have described. It is vital to overcome the problem of unemployment if we are to provide the boost that training schemes need.
The alliance said clearly during the general election campaign that we do not intend to start printing confetti money and throwing it all over the place. It is not possible for Governments to provide jobs just like that. Such a belief will not help. However, although the Government cannot provide jobs they can play a vital role in proving the framework and conditions in which industry can thrive and find new markets for its products or services. The Government do not seem to accept that.
In recent months, we have been suggesting measures to the electorate and the Government along the lines expressed last week by the Confederation of British Industry to the Government. We want not an inflationary package of confetti money, but a steady reflation led by


investment in infrastructure and in capital projects that are labour intensive but have a low import content. This will provide the wealth and opportunities to make the econmy grow again. We are not suggesting a magic wand that will rid us of 3 million unemployed in one or two years; it will take much longer to take people off the unemployment register. It will be a long time before fewer than 1 million people are on the register.
We must also examine job sharing, work attitudes and the means to provide people with opportunities — for example, sabbatical years and leisure activities—so that they enjoy future work patterns.
Hon. Members referred to the defects in the Government's schemes that they have seen in their constituencies. Many youth organisations have made representations that the Governent should listen carefully to young people when deciding how to develop and improve the schemes. The people who understand best how the employment schemes are working are those who take part in them. The National Association of Youth Clubs and similar organisations are involved in the schemes, and in some cases are responsible, with the Manpower Services Commission, for running them.
This has been a useful debate. I hope that it is the first of many debates on motions from the Social Democratic party. This is the first debate on employment since the recess and it has led to agreement across the Chamber. I hope that future debates will provide further opportunities to boost the Government's schemes for the benefit of young people.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) that this has been a worthwhile and interesting debate. I assure all hon. Members that we always listen to constructive ideas to improve the youth training scheme. The hon. Gentleman said that we should have a combined education and training department. I assure him that we have close co-operation—as he would hope—but I shall not accede to his request at this stage.
I appreciate the welcome given by the hon. Gentleman to the youth training scheme. I thought that he was a little fuller in his praise than the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), though I should not like to differentiate between the two. The hon. Member for Stockton, South asked that the scheme should continue for two years. I believe that there should be a period of consolidation to examine how the scheme settles down, because by any stretch of the imagination this is a large launch.
There is agreement across the parties that it is important that the scheme should dovetail in with apprenticeships. We should not stop there; we should co-ordinate the scheme with the adult training strategy. That is the Government's approach to the whole area of training, not just the younger end. I agree with the hon. Members for Stockton, South and for Truro and other hon. Members about monitoring. The scheme will succeed according to its quality. It is important that monitoring is properly conducted.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie)—I understand his point—said that this was a debate about jobs. He cited steelworks and shipbuilding industries in his constituency. He talked also about

apprenticeships. This is a debate about future jobs and training. Traditional apprenticeships have served a useful purpose. A better aim is a combined objective across all industries to achieve high standards, rather than time serving. There is a move towards that objective throughout industry.
My hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) gave the youth training scheme a large measure of support. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North referred to it as a most imaginative scheme, and I believe that it is. We should pay tribute to the enormous amount of work that has been done in launching the scheme by trade unionists, employers, voluntary organisations and the officials of the Manpower Services Commission, who have made a magnificent effort in making a large number of places available in their areas.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), in his maiden speech at the Dispatch Box sought to make the scheme more political than I should like. I believe that the scheme is not about politics and that it will suffer if it is tarred with a political brush. As I pointed out in my intervention during his speech, there were political guidelines on the youth opportunities programme. It was appropriate that the Manpower Services Commission should set out agreed political guidelines.
The hon. Gentleman said that we did not have a coherent policy. I do not agree with him. As I said to the hon. Member for Stockton, South, the policy is coherent in the way in which it is linked with apprenticeships and the adult training strategy. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted a scheme for all minimum age school leavers. That is what the scheme is about. With respect, the hon. Gentleman did not make many constructive suggestions. I am prepared to listen to constuctive suggestions, because I wish to improve the scheme wherever I can.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) cited accident statistics which related to the youth opportunities programme, not the youth training scheme. I hope that he will accept that point. We have said consistently that this is a training scheme and not a work experience scheme. The hon. Gentleman's speech was a rhetoric of hate towards the youth training scheme. Why does he not tell the 2,000 or more youngsters on the scheme in Coventry, and their parents, that he would like to close the scheme? I am sure that he would have an unpleasant hearing.
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am determined that health and safety conditions for those on the scheme are as good as possible. He tried to tell the House that there were no health and safety provisions. The hon. Gentleman knows that trainees have been protected under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) for the way in which he welcomed the scheme. I was interested to hear what he said about apprentices having priced themselves out of the market. I am sure that, because of his experience, the House will want to dwell on that issue.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) identified a problem when he talked about the analysis of the difficulties faced by school leavers and the younger generation, but he failed to put forward a constructive suggestion about how we could proceed. I am interested


in comments, but I want them to be constructive in some respect. The debate has been a little long on analysis and a little short on constructive solution.
The Opposition parties continually find ways for us to spend more money. If we spent more money, quite simply the public sector borrowing requirement would rise, interest rates would rise and money would come out of the system rather than go into it. Contrary to what Opposition Members have said, the younger generation are far more discerning about their future careers than hon. Members imagine. They understand only too well that the youth training scheme is about giving basic training in the industries of the future—not those of the past. That is why more than 250,000 have joined the scheme voluntarily during the past three months. They have voted the scheme a success. They know full well what the Government have done and will be doing for them.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question: —

The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 184.

Division No. 64]
[7.20 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Madden, Max


Anderson, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Meacher, Michael


Ashdown, Paddy
Meadowcroft, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Mikardo, Ian


Bruce, Malcolm
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Carl Me, Alexander (Montg'y)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Nellist, David


Cohen, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Parry, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Penhaligon, David


Dormand, Jack
Pike, Peter


Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Prescott, John


Fisher, Mark
Richardson, Ms Jo


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Freud, Clement
Robertson, George


Golding, John
Rogers, Allan


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Haynes, Frank
Sheerman, Barry


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Geraint
Soley, Clive


Hoyle, Douglas
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Stott, Roger


Johnston, Russell
Tinn, James


Kennedy, Charles
Wainwright, R.


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Wallace, James


Kirkwood, Archibald
Wareing, Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Winnick, David


Loyden, Edward
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McKay, Allen (Penistone)



Maclennan, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Alan Beith and Mr. John Caitwright.


McWilliam, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Amess, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Ashby, David
Bright, Graham


Aspinwall, Jack
Brinton, Tim


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Baldry, Anthony
Bruinvels, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Buck, Sir Antony


Bellingham, Henry
Bulmer, Esmond


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Butcher, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Butterfill, John


Bottomley, Peter
Chope, Christopher





Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Coombs, Simon
Moate, Roger


Cope, John
Moore, John


Couchman, James
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Cranborne, Viscount
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Dicks, T.
Moynihan, Hon C.


Dorrell, Stephen
Murphy, Christopher


Dover, Denshore
Neale, Gerrard


Dunn, Robert
Needham, Richard


Durant, Tony
Neubert, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Newton, Tony


Evennett, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
Normanton, Tom


Fallon, Michael
Norris, Steven


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley


Fookes, Miss Janet
Oppenheim, Philip


Forman, Nigel
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Eric
Page, John (Harrow W)


Fox, Marcus
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Franks, Cecil
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Freeman, Roger
Powell, William (Corby)


Galley, Roy
Powley, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Proctor, K. Harvey


Goodlad, Alastair
Raff an, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Rathbone, Tim


Ground, Patrick
Rhodes James, Robert


Grylls, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gummer, John Selwyn
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Harris, David
Rowe, Andrew


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Ryder, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Heddle, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hirst, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Holt, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Howard, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Sims, Roger


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Speed, Keith


Jackson, Robert
Speller, Tony


Jessel, Toby
Spencer, D.


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Key, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Stern, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lilley, Peter
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lord, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Luce, Richard
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Lyell, Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


McCrindle, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Macfarlane, Neil
Tracey, Richard


MacGregor, John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Maclean, David John.
Viggers, Peter


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Waddington, David


Major, John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Malins, Humfrey
Walden, George


Malone, Gerald
Waller, Gary


Maples, John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Marlow, Antony
Warren, Kenneth


Mates, Michael
Watson, John


Mather, Carol
Watts, John


Maude, Francis
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wheeler, John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry


Mellor, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Merchant, Piers
Wolfson, Mark


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Woodcock, Michael






Yeo, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. David Hunt and Mr. Donald Thompson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
`That this House fully endorses the Government's industrial and economic policies in tackling the root causes of unemployment through the control of inflation and public expenditure, thereby creating the conditions for lasting increases in prosperity and jobs; and, in particular, congratulates the Government on the successful launching of the Youth Training Scheme.'

Personal Social Services

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government's disregard for, and lack of understanding of, community care; rejects current policies which seriously damage the capacity of social services departments to enable more of the elderly, disabled and chronically sick to live at home rather in institutions; and calls for action to assist local communities to take more responsibility for those in need, help for voluntary bodies to develop alternative ways of coping with increasing social needs, and an end to curbs on local authorities' ability to provide essential services.
The motion is deeply critical of the Government. However, before I move to that criticism I have a personal point for the Minister for Health. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke earlier this week at the dinner that I and many other hon. Members attended, which was given by the negotiating committee of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. He revealed then that he was in poor health and suffering from 'flu. I hope that his condition has improved and I say that not just out of the Christian benevolence that always eminates from the alliance Bench, particularly to Conservative Ministers, but also because if the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech is less constructive or not as positive as we would hope, an ill wind will blow from this Bench.
The purpose of this debate, like the one that preceded it, is to be constructive. Ours is the constructive approach. Ours will not be—here I am looking at the empty green Benches elsewhere on the Opposition side of the House —the rather mediocre line of defence that the Labour party presents. However, I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is here. I congratulate him on his appointment to the Front Bench and look forward to his contribution.
Our main enemy is the Government and we speak on behalf of the many people who are suffering from an insufferable Government's policies on community care. The Government said in their consultative document "Care in the Community" of 1981:
more social services provision is needed, both to keep up with the rising numbers of very elderly people and to provide for those being cared for in hospitals who might be better cared for in the community. Reducing long-stay hospital accommodation without expanding alternative provision is not the answer.
How right the Government were. They seemed for once to be talking sense, yet their actions since then, and particularly since the election on 9 June, have proved that they are contradicting the logic of their own argument.
Having provided finance to local authorities through joint funding, the Government are seeking to impose rate capping on many local authorities, and that can only lead to a decline in the support that local authorities can give to voluntary organisations. Having realised that what they said in 1981 in the consultative paper did not match what they were doing, the Government began to change tack. This was exemplified by a letter written on 13 September 1983, which the Secretary of State sent to Councillor David Blunkett, chairman of the social services committee of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. In it, the Secretary of State said:
the effect of the joint finance as it arises in other schemes will inevitably bear more heavily on those authorities who are subject to holdback of grant. I am not convinced that this is necessarily an argument for modifying the calculation of expenditure targets or for exemption of particular items of expenditure from them.


The need remains for all local authorities to restrain their expenditure … local authorities must review the totality of their expenditure and adjust their priorities in the light of all circumstances.
That shows the hollow frame of mind with which the Government approached this problem. Having said in 1981 that
Reducing long-stay hospital accommodation without exanding alternative provision is not the answer
they then told local authorities in September this year that the authorities would have to review their commitments in terms of the overall problems that they raced. We know only too well that the greatest single problem for local authorities is the Ministers. This is placing local authorities in an impossible position. It is from that basis in particular that we should direct our attack on the Government.
Any fool will realise that if local authorities are faced with expenditure cutbacks and with great problems over joint funding, the first of their activities that they will maintain are those for which they have a statutory obligation. In other words, the voluntary organisations will suffer first. The great paradox in which the country has been placed—in region after region—as a result of the Government's measures is that as local authorities have cut their spending on voluntary organisations, so local social and economic pressure on people has increased. As a result, the problems have increased and the voluntary services have been all the more stretched. In other words, a double blow is being dealt to the provision of voluntary and community care and that double blow stems from the Government's policy.
Since the return of the House after the summer recess, the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, have said much about how fond they are of the American Administration. The twisted logic of the economic policy that they have pursued on this issue over the past two years reflects what the previous American Vice-President once called Mr. Reagan's "voodoo economics". I hope that the Government will take note that there is little hope for voluntary services and community care as long as they continue with these policies.
Personal social services are an important problem. Frankly, the Government have yet adequately to defend—although I am sure that the Minister will try to do so tonight — the publication of July 1983 on health and personal social services expenditure. It shows that local authority personal social services spending in 1982–83, set alongside 1983–84, rises from £2,753 million to £2,973 million, and that the figures for the personal social services total measures are £2,852 million to £2,973 million for the same period. Perhaps that is one reason why the Government say that they are spending more.
Indeed, the Government are spending more in cash terms, but what are they spending in real terms? If one feeds those figures through the standard Treasury statistical technique—a Government technique, I hasten to add — the GDP deflator, one finds that current spending has declined by 3·1 per cent. and that the total personal social services expenditure has declined by 1·3 per cent. In other words, in real terms, there is a decline. With an expanding elderly population and demographic changes, increasing burdens are to be placed on local authorities. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on this subject. The matter was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) in his speech in the National Health Service

debate, and on that occasion it was not adequately answered. So we look forward to an explanation from the Government.
The result, therefore, is a disastrous fall in standards. Of course, the elderly will be among the worst hit. The demographic changes have been well documented, and there is little need for me to repeat them. Age Concern England and many other groups as well as the Government themselves have pointed to the areas of concern. It is clear that in 10 years there will be 4 million people over the age of 75. Twenty years will have seen a growth of 60 per cent. in that age group. People over 75, compared with people between the ages of 16 and 65, are 26 times as much a financial burden on the personal social services. In human terms, it means that housebound, bedfast people will increase by 74,000, those who are unable to bath without physical assistance will increase by 200,000, those who are unable to leave their own homes unassisted will go up by 60,000, and over 250,000 will be living alone.
As a result, there will be an enormous increase in community care. What do we see? We are faced with a decline in Government support for the mechanisms, the local authorities and the provisions that are supposed to provide that community care. That is, surely, deeply distressing. It is little wonder that my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I am sure all hon. Members, hear constant complaints from constituents asking for advice and help in their suffering. I have quoted several statistics tonight, but we must not forget that behind each statistic are human values, human dignity and the right of people to enjoy a better standard of living. I am sure that the Government share our concern, but frankly their actions do not meet their rhetoric, and it is high time that their rhetoric matched the reality.
The Government's approach to local government is increasingly centralist. Investments that are taking place, or have taken place, in voluntary organisations are being put at risk as a result of programmes that the Government are implementing. Surely, voluntary organisations play a crucial role in the provision of community services. I pay tribute to the Government for their increased financial support to voluntary organisations—of that there is no doubt, and we compliment the Government on it—but I repeat—it is the central issue of the motion—that the rate limitation proposals that many district and local authorities fear, or are experiencing, mean that the Government are giving money with one hand and taking it away with the other. That is a hopeless situation in which to conduct business and to seek to improve the quality of services and facilities.
The basic unit of structure in community care is, clearly, the family. The Government have rightly said that they want to increase the role of the family. Since the beginning of time the success of the family has depended on love, compassion, tolerance and mutual respect and understanding. Frankly, the Government's attitude is far removed from any of those ideals. Victorian values—except, perhaps, for the best-off—never displayed those ideals to any great extent towards the people who were suffering. Those suffering people are already under intense pressure, and I hope that tonight the Minister will tell us about some positive action that the Government intend to take to relieve the pressure.
If community care is to be backed up by efficient, effective and fair personal social services, it needs communication and a consensus in society. That is the


basis on which the system operates. Communication between central and local Government is appalling. Edicts are sent out and local authorities are expected to comply with them. If they do not do so, they are heavily penalised.
The ideal of consensus comes not only from the Liberal Benches. Hon. Members may have seen the interview with the former Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, who made it clear that in British politics consensus is not an ugly word. The Prime Minister used to call herself one of the conviction politicians, although I notice that she no longer does so. The consensus that any Government should create is not being created by this Government. That consensus is not the hallmark of this Government or of this Prime Minister. Nevertheless, there is a grass roots feeling of social concern in the country. It was illustrated in the excellent series in the early autumn — the LWT "Breadline Britain" series. People are worried about poverty, social hardship and the right to access to social justice, the right to enjoy community care and to benefit from personal social services. What we have had so far from the Government is as inept as it is inadequate.
We in the Liberal-Social Democratic alliance offer this debate tonight in a constructive fashion of opposition. We look forward to hearing the Conservative contributions, and perhaps to more than one contribution from the Labour Benches. In particular, we look forward to the words of the Minister, especially if he can defend or explain the financial implications of community care that we have raised on two occasions in the House. The Government must realise that they are the Government of the nation, not just of the diminished number of people who sent them back to office. To do that, the Government should display a greater social consciousness and social concern. They can do that through the reality of their policies and through the rhetoric of their politicians. At the moment both are deficient. It is in that constructive sense that we have tabled the motion, and we look forward to hearing the Government's defence of their policies from the Minister.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`recognising the constraints imposed by the needs of the national economy, applauds the Government's initiative in promoting new policies for personal social services as set out in "Care in the Community" including new measures to ensure that more of the elderly, mentally ill and mentally handicapped are enabled to be cared for at or near their own homes rather than in institutions; welcomes the Government's action in improving and extending the Joint Finance Scheme, improving co-operation between statutory services and voluntary groups and increasing financial support for the voluntary sector; and looks forward to a continuing steady improvement in the level and quality of support available to those in need in the community.'.
I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) on the manner in which he delivered his speech. Although it was not a maiden speech it must be the first time he has introduced a motion for a half-day debate. He did so with considerable

eloquence, fluency and, for most of the time, factual accuracy. The hon. Gentleman succeeded before he had even started in drawing a larger number of Liberal and Social Democrat Members into the Chamber than I can ever recall seeing before. I am sure that it is not the hon. Gentleman's fault but he seemed to drive away all Labour Members bar three before he even started. He gave his colleagues an opportunity to hear, for the first time in some cases, the SDP policy on personal social services, which the party was unable to debate at this year's conference. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is to reply, is a well-known critic of the alliance with the Social Democrats, he will no doubt put a different gloss on alliance policies. Conservative Members will listen with interest to get an inkling of the differences that still divide them.
Perhaps it followed from the hon. Gentleman's remarks on consensus politics, but as I listened to his speech, I found that the Government were being pursued for policy objectives on which there is not a great difference between us. The objectives that the hon. Gentleman put forward on behalf of his party were a pale shadow of the Government's objectives. Worthwhile objectives for looking after those in need in society are ones which Governments of any complexion try to pursue. There are some areas in which I think the Government are clearer on how to achieve those ends, but we are very much on the same wavelength on objectives.
We accept that the demand for personal social services and support in the community for those in need will grow in the next few years. The number of elderly people in our society will rise. I accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. We also have a changing pattern of care for the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the chronically sick, and we look forward to supporting more of them in the community than in institutions. The rising demand is caused by demography and the changing pattern of care.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this means that the statutory bodies—the local authorities and the health authorities — must respond to those rising demands. They must also take the lead in society and bring out of society itself all the voluntary efforts of friends, relatives, neighbours and those who have joined organised voluntary groups and are prepared to play their part in supporting those in need in our midst. There is an area of growing need to which we must respond. We must also respond to the changing pattern of demand in different ways. We must ensure not only that the statutory services play their part but that we give a lead to the whole community in drawing on the good will of the many individuals who want to help.
In this area the Government have produced new ideas, new money and well-directed initiatives to improve the pattern of social care as well as support for the more familiar forms of social care, which are obviously well worth supporting. Apart from our particular support for the narrow policy area, we have introduced a policy which we apply to every part of public sector activity. We are concerned with the effectiveness of what we do and the quality of the work being done. We are concerned with raising the standards of professional practice and the social work carried out. We think that efficiency, cost-effectiveness and elimination of waste are ways of maximising the worthwile end product for the client, the patient or whoever it may be.
I should first like to give the House the background on finance and money. Our critics in all parties are obsessed with the money and the statistics of the amount spent in every area of activity. We must put the hon. Gentleman's criticisms and the others that will follow into perspective by considering what has happened to local authority personal social services expenditure during the Government's period of office. The amount spent by local authorities on social services has doubled in cash terms. In 1978–79 the figure was £1,062 million; in 1983–84 the budget is for £2,159 million. The conventions that are usually used to try to work out how much growth in services this represents after allowing for the pay and price increases experienced by local authorities show a growth in services of about 12·5 per cent. over the five-year period. The increase in spending during this time, applying the measures that are usually used when cost is being calculated — how the cash compares with movements in the retail price index during the same period — has been 19–9 per cent. compared with the retail price index. Measuring these things in cash, money or amount spent is not good enough but that is the basis of the criticism offered. The criticisms about our cutting the service to the bone must be set in the context of an increase in spending of about 20 per cent. compared with the RPI.

Mr. Donald Anderson: If the Minister compares those two sets of figures with the rising tide of demand, he will be driven reluctantly to the conclusion that it represents a standstill.

Mr. Clarke: I do not think that that can be supported. We will hear during the debate the various estimates of what the rising tide of demand amounts to. Demographic change alone probably accounts for about 1 per cent. a year. With 12 per cent. over five years we are ahead of demographic demand. Therefore in cash terms alone, resources are being expended by local authority social services departments which allow for real growth and the development of services.
I accept that the pattern of spending and activity in each local authority varies. The figures I have given are national. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will set those figures against the background of the Government's general policy on local government spending and our urging on local government a restraint in spending of the type we have had to exercise during a period of economic recession. How do the best local authorities achieve the expansion and development of their services against the background of our policies, which the hon. Gentleman suggested would damage local authorities shortly if they have not done so already? We have asked local authorities to make sound judgments on the priorities within their budgets between services and within services. Of course we have asked them to protect services for the vulnerable. We have asked them to develop services for the priority groups.
That is consistent with the Government's policy towards local authority spending in that it must accompany the elimination of wasteful and unnecessary expenditure in which many local authorities indulge. That means that even within the social services departments themselves there is scope for improving efficiency and cost-effectiveness. That must be so in an area which consumes £2 billion each year and employs more than 200,000 people. Throughout all local authority activities, cutting

out the wasteful and the unnecessary is a way of producing money that enables us to pursue priorities in social services, education and so on. That is the Government's policy and it is consistent with care and concern for the underprivileged who depend on local government services.

Mr. Kennedy: Even accepting hypothetically the Minister's premise, and if wastage, unnecessary expenditure and bureaucracy were eliminated. is he seriously suggesting that the savings generated in local authorities by that exercise would be enough under the Government's rate capping proposals to replace, maintain and continue to extend in pace with demographic changes, particularly with regard to the elderly, the joint financing programmes which they have supported in the past? Is the Minister suggesting that it can be balanced?

Mr. Clarke: Our policy is just that. We are putting forward policies for restraint of Government spending in all areas of local government activity —the best local authorities can show that it is possible—and saying that it is possible by pursuing the right policies and doing things efficiently and effectively to carry on providing worth- while services in this area. I will not bore the House with examples of the frivolous expenditure in which many councils still indulge in some of their activities, and then get into penalty, such as rate capping.
The Government do not impose penalties on individual aspects of local government expenditure. Councils get into penalty on the totality of their expenditure, and those that incur the misfortune of finding their rates capped are those that have got into penalty on the totality of their expenditure.
Councils which then say to their ratepayers, "Because we are in penalty we must halve our home help service or close down this or that popular day centre for the disabled," or whatever it may be—I have no specific examples in mind; one must look at each case on its merits —are playing politics. That is my first reaction, because a council that is spending so much as to be achieving penalties is making a meal of it if it parades a local popular service to the public and says that Government penalties mean that it must be cut out.

Mr. Stephen Ross: rose——

Mr. Clarke: I shall be in danger of cutting some Liberals and Social Democrats out of the debate if I keep giving way.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I invite the Minister to come to the Isle of Wight — [Interruption.] at my expense, tomorrow, next week or at any time—to go through the very matters about which he has been talking. The problem that local authorities have is how on earth they can stay within the limit without going into penalty. It means cutting home helps and shutting village schools. They are some of the terrible choices that have to be made, and I beg the Minister to come to my constituency one clay to sort out some of those matters.

Mr. Clarke: Spoken like the Liberal leader of a county council. I will take up the hon. Gentleman's invitation gladly if a suitable opportunity presents itself. Many councils throughout the country are not incurring penalties and do not find that they must take such dramatic action vis-a-vis their social services.
That is the position on money, but it is not just a question of money. It is the Government's case that one cannot measure activity in this or in any other area just by arguing about the statistics of what is actually spent, particularly in an area like the personal social services. Those really interested in the subject must look not only at the cost of what we do but the value of what we do for those groups most in need. Local and central Government must, and do, share a common interest in improving the effectiveness of the service — getting better value for money, making it more cost-effective, introducing more good practice and spreading the best of professional practice as methods change throughout the country.
That is an area at which we have been looking, following the Barclay report on the work of social workers. We have been looking at ways of co-operating with local government and helping to spread good practice, keeping up standards and improving the effectiveness of what is done. I have been discussing our proposals with the local authority associations, and much remains to be done. We have it in mind to set up a social services inspectorate of the kind suggested in the Barclay report.
Our proposal is that it should be based on the existing DHSS social work service, which has an excellent reputation in the field for its professional standards, and that, in addition to those people, we should second good leading social workers from local authority work, probably some lay people with suitable professional and other skills that they could bring to the work from outside.
It would be a new inspectorate that would carry out most of the statutory inspections for the Secretary of State, as of now — indeed, the local authorities urged us to carry out more statutory inspections—and we hope to agree with the local authority associations a wider range of inspections, some covering one authority, and others covering several authorities, in agreed areas of concern. Those inspections would provide a number of functions.
I emphasised that we are working up the idea in the course of helpful discussions with the local authority associations. We hope to produce a body that will carry out inspections, so doing work of a kind that I see as a sort of cross between the HMIs in education, the probation inspectorate perhaps, and, above all, the health advisory service, the work of which is of considerable use to health authorities in the National Health Service. We must have a body that is satisfactory to everybody and is designed particularly for the social services sphere.
It would retain the present functions in the social work service, commenting on the standards of service and quality of care, but also providing advice, information and assessments aimed in the first instance at the local authority itself. I trust that it would help the members of local authorities, particularly the social services committees, in their task, which is to evaluate their service, keep up standards there and help formulate policy in the light of outside advice.
I have time to give only that one example, but it is one way in which the Government are trying to involve themselves in a way that will be of assistance to all those in social work activities. We hope to make sure not only that we wrangle about how much money we spend, or how much grant the Government provide and whether it is right that authorities may get into penalty—I have given the

figures showing by how much expenditure has expanded during the years we have been in office—but that we also look at the value we are getting for the money that is going in. The new inspectorate will be one way in which the Government can help local authorities raise that value.

Mr. Anderson: Will the new inspectorate, with the new civil servants who will be employed, be empowered to point out deficiencies in the quality of provision in individual local authorities, and might that lead to greater expenditure in those cases to catch up with the average or better local authorities?

Mr. Clarke: We shall not be employing new civil servants. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will guard against the tendency to believe that new ideas must create the employment of more publicly employed people to run them. We have about 100 social workers in the social work service already and we are not looking to add greatly to that number.
I also urge the hon. Gentleman not to take a negative view about the new policy. I understand his wariness. Naturally, we shall ask those concerned to point out deficiencies in services where they find them, pointing them out in a way that is helpful to the local authority, ourselves and the public, in whatever public documents emerge, so that whatever is appropriate to remedy that deficiency can be identified and, we hope, put right.
I have explained one of the ways in which we are concerned with the quality of care, and I come now to the view of the Government on the subject matter, the content of policies particularly in the areas mentioned by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye. His party's motion has some cheek in lecturing us on the need to provide for the care of the elderly, chronically sick and others at or near their own homes rather than in hospital, because that is very much the policy of the Government. The document that he cited as a model to be aimed at was the Government's "Care in the Community" document published in 1981, and we have an excellent record.
We inherited the system of joint finance. As an example of Government support of community care, it is health authority money expended for community care and it is in support of our general objectives. It is a good system and we have built on it. In the year before we took office, 1978–79, the joint finance allocation was £34·5 million. In the current year the allocation is £94·1 million, an increase of 180 per cent. in cash terms and 50 per cent. in real terms. Total NHS expenditure on joint finance schemes up to last March amounted to over £300 million, a significant sum by any standards.
The take-up remains high. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye said what is repeatedly said by those in local government—that in the end, when the taper is operated, the burden falls on local government and is a discouragement to them. But it has always been in the rules of the scheme that eventually the burden will fall on local government so as to release the joint finance pool for new developments.
As I said, the take-up of joint finance remains high. The £300 million to which I referred is about 95 per cent. of the total to be allocated, and the indications are that the whole of the joint finance allocation for this financial year will be taken up, so some authorities are being deterred more than others. As the hon. Gentleman said, those being deterred the most are those that run the risk of penalty. The


Government say to those authorities in reply, "Do something about your total expenditure. Get rid of the nonsense you are spending money on now and you will not be in such risk of incurring penalties, and then you will be able to take advantage of the joint finance to the same extent as others who are taking it up."
The "Care in the Community" initiative took matters beyond joint finance. It was designed expressly to deal with the problem of, for example, long-stay patients who needed to be moved out of hospital so as to have more suitable support in or near their own homes. We have just launched that scheme. Part of it depends on an extension of the joint finance arrangements so that joint finance can now be used for up to 10 years at 100 per cent. of support costs and up to 13 years in all in the "Care in the Community" circumstances.
After that time the health authority can use its own money for an unlimited period to support the cost of community care for those who would otherwise be unwilling long-stay patients in hospital. To help promote the intitiative the Government are setting up a programme of pilot projects. We have set aside £15 million of joint finance for central support. We have already had 50 outline applications and I hope that that programme will go well.
We have tried to involve the voluntary sector as well as the statutory sector to provide community care for people who might otherwise be hospital patients. We are encouraging health and local authorities to co-operate more closely with each other and to draw the voluntary organisations into joint planning concerns. We have given voluntary organisations a place on the joint consultative committees of health and local authorities.

Mr. Michael Meacher: The Minister slides rather too glibly over joint funding, as he does on so many matters. He suggests that local authorities were aware of the effect of tapering arrangements on revenue expenditure. That is true, but they had no inkling that the Government would impose rate capping on them. That has now happened and has combined with the effect of the tapering arrangements. If the Minister will not disregard this expenditure for the purpose of calculating targets, will he at least consider doing so for the purpose of calculating liability for grant holdback?

Mr. Clarke: We have had such representations ever since the scheme started, and we are continuing to look at them. It is highly unlikely that, after the end of the tapering period, finance should be disregarded. Once such exceptions are made, the basis upon which it is necessary to control Government expenditure is destroyed. It is surprising that local authorities insist that the threat of targets makes them turn to some community care projects at an early stage when they are looking for savings.
Let me illustrate the new ideas that the Government have introduced alongside the greatly increased expenditure that is taking place. We keep announcing special initiatives which are Government financed and normally intended to pump prime in important areas. Announcements have been made about services for mental illness in old age. That initiative was launched when the health advisory report "Rising Tide" was published earlier this year. Over the next three years £6 million will be made available for that and I am glad to say that the regional health authorities have now nominated the districts where

new comprehensive services for the elderly and mentally ill are being launched. I hope that all those districts which devised schemes to bid for money will not waste the work but will go ahead and, having identified problems in the area, will try to develop services.
We have attached high priority to taking mentally handicapped children out of hospital. We launched our initiative at the end of 1980 and since that time authorities have been encouraged to review the needs of all children in their care. We are pleased that so far we have been able to provide central funds to help launch 19 local schemes for transferring children from long-stay hospitals to community care. We hope to be able to support similar schemes in the near future. We have had 70 applications for funds under that scheme which shows that authorities throughout Britain share our concern that young mentally handicapped children should not have long-stay care in hospital but should be in smaller units.
I remind the House of our initiative on young offenders. We are making sure that vulnerable young people in trouble with the course who can benefit from non-costodial treatment are given some positive help outside borstal and detention centres. We have a new community -based package financed with £15 million spread over the next five years to build up a new system of so-called intermediate treatment. That is a phrase we all hate but no one has thought of a better name. We hope that that intermediate treatment will command the confidence of magistrates and the public and provide a more constructive way to deal with young offenders.
We are also making progress in implementing the Children Act 1975, which should be popular in this debate as the leader of the Social Democratic party was responsible for its enactment. Until now it has not been possible to put all its provisions into effect. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security takes the lead on this matter and he is steadily bringing the provisions of the Children Act into effect and also making other improvements in child care and access to children.

Mr. Kennedy: I am glad that the Minister mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). Will the Minister be considering the wide issue of custodianship as part of those developments?

Mr. Clarke: Certainly, and perhaps I shall be able to help the hon. Gentleman on that.
We have made considerable strides. On the adoption side we have introduced three important measures —arrangements for approval by the Secretary of State of voluntary adoption societies; the ending of private adoption arrangements and the introduction of adoption allowance schemes. In April 1984 we shall bring in provisions which will enable courts to declare a child free for adoption and several smaller improvements to adoption procedures. We shall then have gone a considerable way towards completing implementation of the Act's adoption provisions.
A major part of the 1975 Act is custodianship—sections 33 to 46—on which the hon. Gentleman has just prompted me. The difficulty of finding extra resources for the courts has stood in the way of earlier implementation under successive Governments. However, I am glad to say that with the agreement of my noble


Friend the Lord Chancellor—it is his budget that has to provide the resources — we shall be introducing custodianship provisions by the end of next year. That will mean new opportunities for security and stability for children for whom adoption would not be the right solution, including many children in long-term care.
On the care side, our priority has been the full implementation of section 64 so that parents can obtain legal aid in care proceedings in all cases where the court has asked that they should be separately represented. At the same time courts will be able to appoint guardians ad litem. We are bringing in that part of section 58 of the original Act which is now section 7 of the Child Care Act 1980 which will enable courts to make the child party to proceedings and to appoint guardians ad litem for children. At present the child has no status in the proceedings before the court.
All those reforms will come into force in April 1984 and we shall be able at last to see the proceedings operate as the 1975 Act intended. We have recently completed a consultation exercise on the setting up of panels of guardians ad litem. The 1975 Act provides new functions for guardians ad litem in care proceedings and parental rights proceedings. They will also have a role in the new access legislation which is still to be introduced.
The consultations generated a widepread and helpful debate on the role and functions of guardians. There is plainly a divergence of views and it has become clear that we need more time to be sure that we have those right.
The procedural guidance contained in the court rules which were drawn up in 1976 is clearly not adequate for the new part that guardians must play in the various proceedings. We have therefore decided to consult more widely than usual on the content of the rules. One effect of this further period of consultation will be that the courts will not be able to appoint guardians if we keep to January for the new access proceedings, as we had intended. However, we have concluded that the new provisions in section 12(a) to (g) of the Child Care Act 1980, as amended, are so important that we should not delay their implementation, which will for the first time give parents the right to challenge decisions by local authorities to deny all further access to a child in care. At the same time, it is essential that the child's interests should be safeguarded.
Although courts will not be able to appoint a guardian, they will be able to make a child party to the proceedings. He will then be entitled to be legally aided and legally represented. This package has enabled my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to keep us to the January date, and a commencement order will be laid in due course. From April, guardians will be available, as intended by the legislation, in access as in other proceedings.
These legislative reforms do not represent all that we have tried to do to improve services for children. We have recently completed the consultation exercise on the new code of practice on access to children in care, and guidance on procedures for the assumption of parental rights. We were very encouraged by the response to the consultation, and we hope that the documents will do much to encourage the good practice that is an essential complement to enlightened legislation.
There is no room for complacency. Concern is constantly expressed in the House about the problems of children in care, and about many aspects of the legislation.

That is why we are pleased that the Social Services Select Committee last year began an inquiry into children in care. The general election prevented the Committee from issuing a report, but it may be that the newly appointed Committee will be deciding whether to issue a report. If the Committee decides to do so, the Government will welcome that decision. In the meantime, we know that our reforms do not go as far as some hon. Members and some groups outside the House would have wished. However, I believe that we can show — this illustrates the Government's concern in this field — that we have achieved through these measures a material and significant contribution to the welfare and rights of children separated from their parents, and of those children's families.
The smooth working of the developments that I have announced will depend greatly on the ability of the local authorities to absorb them into the working of their child care services. In particular, the local authorities will have a new function of setting up and managing the panel of guardians from next April. We are grateful to the local authorities for the way in which they have participated so far in the formulation of these policies and adapted themselves to the needs of these new policies. I am sure that they will continue to build on this evolving legislative framework to develop their own services.
That concludes my lengthy statement on our position on child care. I have also briefly covered a number of other aspects of social services provision. I hope that I have shown that, lying behind our argument about the figures there is an extremely good record on financial provision. We will continue to listen to arguments about cuts, but at times it becomes pretty daft to tell us that we are cutting financial provision to an area of service where such rapid increases in expenditure can be shown by many social services departments. Apart from the arguments about money, the Government have ideas and concern. They have developed and improved the services for the many who are needy in the community and who need the services. That will continue to be our approach to these matters. I therefore commend to the House the reasoned amendment in the name of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I start with the simple proposition that a society's attitude to the mentally and physically sick, the aged and the young, and the financial sacrifices that a society is prepared to make for those unproductive people, is one of the key indicators of the degree of civilisation of that society. Judged against that standard, Britain has become a less civilised society over the years of Conservative government. The theme has been cuts in public expenditure and the reduction of taxation. The effect has been increasing misery among those in need and the expansion of a two-tier society, illustrated graphically by the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) to the Prime Minister earlier this week. He asked her why, if the National Health Service was safe in her hands, the right hon. Lady was not prepared to feel safe in the hands of the National Health Service.
How different it would be if, instead of the constant theme of public expenditure cuts and reducing taxation, the Government's theme was a crusade to mobilise society to help the needy in our midst. The cuts—or efficiency savings, as they are now euphemistically termed—harm that section of society which is least likely to benefit from


cuts in taxation. The Government are totally out of touch with public opinion if they assume that their priorities in this area reflect those of the country as a whole. In both the National Health Service and the personal social services, there are forces for inescapable growth of expenditure. However, the budgets—even on the figures outlined by the Minister—show that there is a standstill, and effectively mean a reduction in standards.
The House held a debate on the National Health Service on 27 October. This debate is its counterpart. The way in which we criticised in that debate the effects of NHS cuts —on bone marrow transplants, on kidney patients and ward closures—have been more than confirmed by the statement yesterday from the president of the Royal College of Nursing. She said that the public
must face the prospect of a continuously deteriorating health service unless the Government rethinks its manpower and cash cuts policy for the National Health Service.
Despite the Minister's excellent advocacy, that is the reaction of someone in the front line in the real world.
Of course there is an interaction between the NHS and the personal social services. The financial pressures fall on both. That interaction is clearly shown by the continuum of housing for the elderly, through sheltered and residential home to hospitals. The director of social services in west Glamorgan, for example, would certainly dispute the average figure that the Minister gave for the percentage increase needed annually to remain at a standstill. He states that in our county we need at least a 2·5 per cent. increase in expenditure on the elderly if we are to maintain standards.
Thus, there is pressure at each end of the housing continuum as a result of Government tits. Obviously, housing as a whole has suffered the greatest proportion of Government cuts during the past five years. Equally, as a result of cuts in social service budgets, the building of residential homes for the aged has been postponed. In my local authority the average age at which a person is admitted to a residential home for the elderly has risen to 80. Obviously, those homes are becoming quasi-geriatric hostels. As people at that more advanced age are more frail, there is a corresponding effect on staff ratios and on the need for more paramedical assistance.
The Minister's reply has been that local authorities must look at their own housekeeping and that they are profligate. However, I invite him to consider the record of my local authority, west Glamorgan, and to see where he thinks those cuts should be made. Cuts also have implications for those local authorities that sponsor beds in voluntary homes. There has been an increase in the number of private homes for the elderly, which has been encouraged in turn by the increased board and lodging allowances of the DHSS. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that, as it means that the elderly have more choice. however, as residents become more confused, voluntary homes frequently do not want to know, and pass the problem on to the statutory authorities that have an obligation to provide.
The Government's response to the increasing demographic pressures in our society includes continued progress in community care. I welcome the Government's initiatives in that respect, and the important announcement concerning legal representation for children that the Minister outlined. Those changes are admirable. For example, my local authority is one of those pioneers developing community programmes for foster care. That

has led to a decrease in the number of children in residential care. It is cost effective, and releases resources for expenditure on the elderly. Similarly, my county has developed community care for the elderly, with intensive home care, which is encouraged by the Government. It has employed 66 extra people in the process as robots cannot be used to tackle the problem of more intensive home care. By so doing, the local authority has faced the problem of manpower restrictions imposed by the Government. If the Government glibly ask why the authority does not cut manpower in other areas of the social services, the authority would reply by saying that manpower in the social services has already been trimmed by 17 per cent. in the past two years so it is difficult to provide the additional resources needed for intensive home care from within the existing manpower of the local authority social services department. The Government in this as in other areas must consider the manpower implications of their policy.
The Government have responded to criticisms by saying that we should develop voluntary care within society. We welcome the increased financial assistance available for voluntary organisations. History shows that when voluntary organisations have pioneered developments and shown the way, the state thereafter assumes responsibility.
Strict limits are imposed on what voluntary organisations can do because of the need for consistency in the long term, because of the scale of the required operation. Although further progress can be made, the Government may be encouraging unrealistic expectations of the progress which can be made by expanding the voluntary sector.
Problems have occurred in the joint financing schemes—the tight financial targets and the tapering arrangements which many local authorities say have deterred them from embarking on worthwhile schemes. We must have clear, and permanent joint arrangements to gain the confidence of local authorities.
Can a service subjected to severe expenditure cuts cope with increased demographic and other demands imposed upon it? My right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) has already referred to the rate-capping system—perhaps better described as Whitehall's knee-capping operation on local authorities.
If we wish to continue the growth of the community services for the elderly, we must consider whether we have abandoned the family and community structures which are necessary for the success of the operation.
Will the Government consider good neighbour schemes such as those pioneered in some parts of the United States — although the individuals who participate in the scheme must be carefully vetted? The scheme is needed at a time when, because of increased mobility, families are dispersed and individuals in the community are needed to assist the elderly and the handicapped by visiting them, shopping and reading to them. Such a scheme might make an inroad into the army of unemployed. The Government could encourage such a scheme by re-examining the rules of income in terms of unemployment benefit. People can participate in a proper community service activity without suffering the poor law implications which can be ascribed to it.
We could increase community care and mobilise some of the unemployed in our community with assistance through the benefit scheme, thereby enabling people to


live longer in their communities and be less liable to be institutionalised and giving much-needed work, identity, a role and above all dignity to the growing army of unemployed in our society.

Mr. Timothy Yeo: I begin my contribution to this important debate by expressing strong support for Government policy in this area. I especially commend the consultative document, "Care in the Community". Publication of that document was a great step forward. It showed the Government's willingness to act where many of their predecessors had merely spoken. I am sorry that that has not been more clearly recognised by the Opposition. I listened in vain for the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) to say anything constructive other than endorsing existing Government policy.
"Care in the Community" was widely welcomed by the professionals and by voluntary organisations, including the Spastics Society. I shall refer to three aspects of that document. First, joint finance is being extended to cover housing and education. That is especially welcome. The elderly, the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill should not always be considered in terms of social service provision. The perpetuation of a medical and social service model for the care of those groups is unforunate, because they have other needs, especially in housing and education. In addition, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has said, £15 million is to be top sliced from the joint finance allocation to be used for a range of innovative and pilot projects. Innovation is essential. If we are to rehabilitate people into the community, we must be imaginative in the way in which we tackle the problems.
Secondly, in relation to mentally handicapped children in long-stay hospitals, I warmly endorse the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment when he was Secretary of State for Social Services. He said:
The time has come to state unequivocally that large hospitals do not provide a favourable environment for a mentally handicapped child to grow up in.
That statement was made three years ago. Since then a £1 million matching funds scheme has been set up, designed to encourage voluntary organisations to set up schemes to bring children out of long-stay hospitals. That was a further demonstration of the Government's determination to make progress with this problem. The Spastics Society has been promised £250,000 from the DHSS to establish a unit in the north-west to rehabilitate into the community children with multiple handicaps and severe behavioural problems. I hope that the Government will consider extending the pound-for-pound matching funds scheme and increasing the amount of money available so that more projects can be funded. A further £3 million from central funds is also available for health authorities with special problems to develop schemes to get children out of hospital.
Thirdly, the work of the voluntary organisations is close to my heart. They have traditionally provided community services for the elderly and the handicapped. They have supported those people in the community. Their services are an essential supplement to the work of the statutory authorities. They are often specialist. In relation to

handicapped people especially, an organisation dealing with a particular category of people can often provide specialist assistance which local authorities sometimes cannot provide. The service is often good value, too, because of the voluntary input. I therefore especially welcome the inclusion of these bodies on joint consultative committees. I know how valuable participation in the planning process will be to them.
Not everything in the garden is as perfect as we would like. There are many worries. For example, can health authorities, with ever-decreasing budgets, maintain hospital services and at the same time develop community services? The present method of administering joint finance gives local authorities less incentive than I should like them to have to develop community services, although the high rate of take-up, referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, is encouraging. I hope that it will continue.
Another worry is whether adequate resources are being allocated to get children out of hospitals. It would be highly desirable to set a date by which all children would be out of long-stay institutions for the mentally handicapped. The establishment of such a date would concentrate wonderfully the minds of the regional health authorities' administrators. I am not satisfied that regional health authorities are making enough progress in that direction. In addition to setting a date, if the numbers of children remaining in long-stay institutions were published regularly, that would help to focus regular public and political attention on the problem.
I stress the importance of providing support for those who do the caring in the community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad of hon. Members' support. I still attach great importance, when resources permit, to the extension of the invalid care allowance to married and cohabiting women. At present there is discrimination against them which should be ended as soon as resources permit.
More directly relevant to the personal social services is the need for adequate and nationwide provision of short-term respite care. That would allow families the chance to have a break from the work which most of them do with great commitment and pleasure for their handicapped or elderly relatives. It is essential that those families have opportunities for a break from the burden of caring and that the respite care is undertaken locally rather than hundreds of miles away.
The Government's recognition of that problem was welcomed last year when they decided to save Tadworth Court children's hospital. It provides just such a service for many families with handicapped children who are in desperate need of a break. That was an imaginative and tangible demonstration of the Government's willingness to adopt an unusual scheme to preserve a valuable service on a cost-effective basis. I hope that that decision, and the transfer of Tadworth to the group of voluntary organisations which hope to take over the administration, will be accomplished very speedily.
I shall set an example and make my contribution brief. Everyone recognises the importance of personal social services in relation to community care, and acknowledges the growing size of the problem. Many hon. Members will undoubtedly have had the statistics kindly provided by, among others, Age Concern. Thankfully, the Government are facing the issues and tackling them positively and imaginatively. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister


said, the resources devoted to community care have substantially increased under the Government. For that reason, I hope that the House will reject the motion and pass the amendment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House might like to be informed that the winding-up speeches are expected to begin at about 9.30 pm. Several hon. Members hope to speak before that.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) on his speech. Like the Minister, I thought that he spoke with great fluency and much feeling and consideration for the subject. I congratulate him on his choice of subject.
I am afraid that I can find no such ready words of praise for the Minister's speech. No doubt he will not be surprised. Although he delivered his speech extremely fluently, as he always does, it was the most extraordinary self-righteous tour de force that I have heard for a long time, even from him. He gave the impression that it was all a matter of avoiding waste or of administrative cost-cutting. There was not a word about rate-capping, cuts or a massive grant holdback.
We in the Opposition share the view of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) that we should like all children to be transferred out of long-stay institutions by a given date. However, there is no use suggesting such policies and voting down the line in support of economic policies that make that impossible.
If the Minister is really concerned about making cuts, I recommend him to look to the places where cuts can be made. I give two examples. First, the drug companies take advantage of the National Health Service. The second example is defence contractors. The Minister could make bigger savings in those areas rather than battening on some of the weakest and neediest in our society.
I welcome the debate, as it rightly draws attention not only to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society, caught in the vice of the Government's increasing squeeze on local authority spending, but—this is just as important—to the false economies that a policy of blind and obsessional cutting produces in the key area of personal social services. Improving community care should be the flagship of a caring society. Under the Government it has become the victim of accounting criteria that not only are damaging or short-sighted but, if present policies are not reversed, will lead to gross mismanagement of the nation's resources. I shall explain why.
The Minister has made a great deal of the 9 per cent. real growth in personal social services in the four years up to 1982–83. Perhaps it is now 12 per cent. The Minister mentioned that figure today, but perhaps that is over a five-year period.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): It is 12·7 per cent.

Mr. Meacher: Perhaps it is 12·7 per cent. The Ministershould not get so excited. If he listens to what I shall say,he will hear that the Government's record is not attractive.
There are two good reasons for regarding the growth rate as far from a triumph, which is the way in which the

Minister for Health seeks to represent it, but as distinctly unsatisfactory. One is that it is a fairly paltry record of growth when it is compared with what went beforehand. As I am sure the Minister knows, between 1969 and 1979, which I admit is a longer period, expenditure on personal social services went up by no less than 150 per cent in real terms. Therefore, when the 9 per cent. is put in perspective, it is a pretty poor falling off. This year there will almost certainly be a cut back in real term. Over the whole five-year period, there is no doubt that the Government have totally failed to expand the personal social services to the extent necessary for them to perform their real role as a major and complementary partner of the NHS.
There is a second, more serious reason why the 9 per cent. or 12 per cent. —or even 12·7 per cent.—is an alarming shortfall. It is insufficient even to keep up with the increasing number of elderly people who need the services. I entirely support what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said about the comparison with demand. That is the bench-mark by which we should judge performance in personal social services.
The Minister has all too often resorted to using the wrong criteria. It is not growth in real expenditure per se that is the real measure, but improvement in a constant level of service that takes account of extra demand. By that criterion, the Tory record over the past five years has been lamentably deficient in community care programmes. The Government's measure of a constant level of service is a 2 per cent. real expenditure increase per year The Minister said 1 per cent. I am not sure whether that was a slip.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: A demographic 1 per cent. increase.

Mr. Meacher: The Minister said there was a demographic 1 per cent. increase, but the figure which the DHSS has used repeatedly is 2 per cent. Even the DHSS does not believe that 2 per cent. additional growth per year is enough to meet the extra demand. In a written answer on 15 February the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) said:
central Government concluded last year that a minimum"—
that is the word I stress—
expenditure growth of two per cent. was needed to maintain existing standards of service in the face of growing numbers of the very elderly and other increasing pressures." — [Official Report, 15 February 1983; Vol, 37, c. 135.]
There is irrefutable evidence that 2 per cent. is far too low. I suspect that many officials, if Ministers were to press them, would admit that.
To give one example, in 1980–81, when Government figures were registering real expenditure growth well in excess of the 2 per cent. demographic allowance, we now know from surveys that there were widespread cuts in service. In fact, 13 out of 18 areas of service suffered reductions in absolute levels of output at the same time as the Government tell us that there were real expenditure increases of 2·75 per cent.
The Association of Directors of Social Services in its latest report, of which the Minister will be aware, says that in its view 4 per cent. or even 6 per cent. real growth is required simply.
to prevent standards from dropping".
That is a very important statement coming, as it does, from that association. I am well aware that the Minister replied


to that statement when it was made and I have read in detail what he said, but I still believe that the association is probably nearer the truth than he is, for two reasons.
One reason is rising unit costs. This is no fault of the Minister but he must take account of it and he is not doing so. For example, the Disability Alliance recently concluded that rising unit costs meant that 5 per cent. real expenditure growth purchased less than a 1 per cent. increase in services. I hope I have the Minister's attention because I think he has not taken account of the significance of that. It indicates that there are sharply rising unit costs and that a 2 per cent. increase in resources over and above inflation is completely insufficient to take account of extra demand and extra need.
The other reason is that under the Government's regime the level of services has nowhere near kept pace with the growing number of the over-75s. We are all agreed on the figures. I shall give one simple measure of this.

Mr. John Patten: rose——

Mr. Meacher: I shall give way when I have given this example. In round terms there was a 10 per cent. reduction in residential places, home helps and meals on wheels per 1,000 population of the over-75s in 1980–81 compared with five years earlier; that is the real criterion. That was after two years in which the Government figures were allegedly registering real expenditure growtn of 4·5 per cent. and 2·5 per cent.

Mr. Patten: As the hon. Gentleman was making his interesting point about the alleged rises in unit costs, my hon. and learned Friend and I were discussing exactly what the cause of these alleged increases was. Could the hon. Gentleman explain further?

Mr. Meacher: Residential care provision becomes more expensive at a faster rate than the increase in inflation. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read the Loughborough paper, a major study which shows that between 1975–76 and 1980–81 there was a 2 per cent. increase in residential care places for the elderly but a 19 per cent. increase in cost in real terms. We appreciate that this is not the Government's fault, but all we ask is that they do not try to pretend that the record of the last five years is anywhere near adequate even to maintain standards, let alone improve them.
The first and crucial demand which we therefore make tonight of the Government is that if community care is not increasingly to become abandoned and if it is to mean something, they must recognise that a 2 per cent. real expenditure growth per year is wholly inadequate simply to maintain standards. If the Government will not commit themselves to a minimum annual growth target of 4 per cent. they are implicitly admitting to presiding over falling standards. That is the fact.

Mr. John Patten: The hon. Gentleman's argument is not soundly based.

Mr. Meacher: The Minister might say that my argument is not soundly based, but I can give him abundant evidence afterwards that all of the relevant authorities such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and relevant organisations believe that what I have said is soundly based and that what he says is not.
What I have just argued, however, is not the real case against the Government. The real case against them is that such growth as there has been in the personal social services owes nothing to the Government. Indeed, growth has occurred in the teeth of the Government's most bitter resistance. Local authorities that have been determined to maintain standards, let alone improve them, have had about as much encouragement from the Government as the luckless victims of a Star Chamber inquisition. That process is now culminating in rate cutting for their pains. For the Minister to preen himself on growth in personal social services under the Tory regime when in fact they have done their utmost to prevent it by checks on local authority spending is the most nauseating of double-talk.
It is largely only those local authorities that have suffered penalties for resisting Government cuts that have saved the Government's face by introducing any real growth in personal social services. In the past five years, Islington, for example, has increased its number of home helps per thousand of population over the age of 65 from 8·8 to 11·2. That is a remarkable achievement, and I give Islington credit for it. However, Islington is now being punished by the Government and is losing one fifth of its grant through holdback. Sheffield increased the number of its home helps during the same period from 9·5 to 11·5 and is now being rewarded by having 15 per cent. of its grant held back.
It is breathtaking arrogance on the part of the Government to hammer local authorities that are committed to preserving services for overspending, to intensify the pressure on authorities by increasing holdback and then opportunistically to claim that they are protecting services for the most vulnerable. If the Minister sincerely wanted to help the most vulnerable, he would be going down on his knees to thank local authorities such as those I have mentioned, not punishing them.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As I said in my opening speech, local authorities incur penalties for the totality of their spending. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that we are penalising Islington for worthwhile developments in its provision of personal social services? Has he forgotten that Islington spends money on bizarre fringe activities? I understand that it was Islington which recently hired two people to try to stop the populatiom from telling Irish jokes. That is the type of expenditure which gets Islington into penalty. It is ridiculous to assert that we are imposing penalty because it has increased the number of home helps.

Mr. Meacher: For the Minister to suggest that the huge cuts that have been imposed on Islington are for reasons such as that which he gave is to reduce the debate to farce. He must realise that. Penalty has absolutely nothing to do with the minuscule, trivial and tiny episode to which he referred. Besides, I have no knowledge of it. Of course it is the totality of expenditure which is being held back, but, if the Government reduce the totality, local authorities that want to maintain or improve some services will be forced to make even larger cuts in others.
It is no thanks to the Government that, fortunately, most local authorities have tried to maintain their level of personal social services. The Government are insincere. The White Paper of November 1979 reveals all too clearly that the Government intended that personal social services should be treated more harshly than any other part of the


public service. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State is leaving the Chamber to check what I am about to say. He will be able to confirm that the White Paper envisaged a 6·7 per cent. reduction in spending on personal social services. That is what the Government intended. I believe that that is not what happened—thanks to local authorities defying the grant cutback, not to the Government's wish for an increase.
What is most worrying is that health services are rapidly deteriorating. Under the repeated hammer blows of the cuts, the number of authorities that failed to meet even the DHSS's minimal 2 per cent. real growth target is rapidly increasing. In 1979–80, a quarter of all authorities failed to meet that target, in 1980–81, nearly a half failed to do so; and in 1981–82, two thirds failed to do so. I predict that this year the figure will be 90 per cent. or more. This year it is now almost certain, in my view from looking at figures, that there will be a real overall cutback in personal social services—not just failure to meet the 2 per cent. growth target. That is a depressing prospect for many of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.
I urge the Government to take the one specific action that is within the parameters of their policies—I do not always agree with them — that could significantly alleviate the gathering crisis. I return, without apology, to joint finance schemes. These have been proved—we all agree — many times over as a means of sensibly transferring patients from National Health Service hospitals to local authority care. I urge the Government to reconsider the consequences of tapering arrangements for revenue expenditure as they constitute a threat to the continuation of these schemes. Several local authorities have decided not to embark upon any new, jointly financed projects, especially with rate capping imminent. They include Barnet, Knowsley, Ealing, Bexley, Newcastle, Oldham — that is my area — Sutton and Gateshead. I list them to show that not one of these authorities is one that the Minister or some of his colleagues would dare to call profligate authorities.
It is surely unfair that authorities which duly meet these commitments — which, in some cases, will increase eight-fold during the next seven years—will incur rate support grant penalties even larger than the bills.
If the Minister is serious, as I like to believe he is, in his pretensions to protect these schemes not only as a central hinge of community care provision, but as most sensible allocation of the nation's resources, I urge him strongly to reconsider what he said and to consult again with his colleagues—because this is not just a matter for him— in the Department of the Environment and the Treasury with a view to ensuring that this expenditure is disregarded in calculating, if not targets, liability for grant holdback.
A devastating crisis is building up in community care. It is fuelled by inadeqate expenditure outlays, and now annual cuts; by grant penalties, and now rate-capping; by rapidly growing demand; by rising unit costs of residential care provision, and by a dogmatic Government attitude towards joint finance schemes which, sadly, will deny thousands of elderly, disabled and chronically ill people the community care that they desperately need. If their voice is not heard, because they are not organised, do not have the capacity to demonstrate or the power to withdraw their labour, that is not a reason why the House should ignore their plea.
Nor do cutbacks make even economic sense. Some of those in the community who could have coped with support will deteriorate more swiftly and make demands on expensive health services. The knock-on effect of reduced support services and the subsequent increased demand and other inroads made by patients into the patient health care system, will achieve the opposite of what the Government intend. The effects will be long term. In community care, today's cuts are tomorrow's crisis. That is why the Opposition are opposing the application of damaging and short-sighted cutbacks to the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: As the time available is short, I shall endeavour to be brief. Following the Minister's excellent exposition of the Government's case in maintaining support for the funding of community services, the Opposition response clearly showed that they do not understand either the financing or the will of the Government. There is no doubt about the Government's commitment to the funding of community services and, indeed, all social services.
When in opposition, Conservative Members were faced with a Labour Government who were adding to massive inflation. We looked for an alternative source of funding care in the community. We were concerned about the people mentioned in the motion. We looked to the voluntary services, and since then we have been consistent in our support for them. In 1980 a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer released £300 million into the voluntary sector, through tax concessions on gifts and bequests and employment costs.
It is not the Government's will for funding that is wrong, but the attitude of Socialist-controlled local authorities. I have experience of local authorities, and know that they have an intense dislike of the voluntary sector, because they are concerned to maintain centralised control over their expenditure. I see that happening in my authority in the share-out of finances for child care and the squeezing out of the voluntary sector.
Local authorities, despite the restraints on them, are still empire building. They built empires to such an extent that they increased their staff levels to a ridiculous point. During a recent discussion with the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), he described the local authority system as a form of Stalinism. Those were his words, not mine, but I am forced to agree with him. The attitude of local authorities has contributed greatly to a consistent budgetary overspend. Local authorities, especially Socialist local authorities, are failing to establish priorities.
My local authority of Strathclyde has been innovative and courageous in many respects. It can cope with its statutory obligations within its budget. It has a strong child-oriented policy, which stems from a document called "Born to Fail", which told of the multiple deprivation suffered by many children in the Strathclyde region. At the same time, the Government are injecting into that authority massive sums of urban aid which go to assist those children.
There is a declining population of children. It is high time that we looked at the balance of the budget. As we have heard many times tonight, the elderly population is increasing. I appreciate, as we all do, the problems of the


elderly. Despite the fact that we know that the problem is growing in intensity, little has been done by local authorities to care for the elderly. There is a great deal of cant at local authority level when talking about the elderly. Local authorities have it in their power to make policy decisions to help the old. My authority attacked one of the most vital services upon which the elderly depend—the home help service. In other words, it was playing a cynical game with the Government at the expense of these elderly people.
Let me revert to the record of care of voluntary bodies which, in association with local authorities, help our elderly people. We can see from the statistics how the voluntary services benefit our elderly people. However, the way in which they operate casts severe doubts on the operation and the budgeting of local authorities. I can quote from the Scottish abstract of statistics. In March 1979 there were 39 local authority day centres in Scotland, with 1,355 places. In March 1982 there were 64 day centres, with 2,212 places. The voluntary register of day centres shows that in March 1979 there were 10 day centres, with 2,168 places, and in March 1982 there were 11 day centres with 2,740 places. Those figures show that the 11 voluntary day centres serve more people than 64 local authority day centres. This, above all, shows clearly the benefit which the voluntary sector gives us.
It has been said tonight that joint financing with health authorities is an excellent arrangement. In theory it is in some districts, and is working extremely well, but in my region it is working extremely badly. Despite the heavy increase in Government commitments to joint financing, there appears to be, at local level, a failure to understand the needs of the elderly. Local authorities talk in grandiose terms about geriatric hospitals and the need for geriatric provision. However, geriatric provision is only a small portion of the needs of older people. Most people over the age of 70 are not geriatric in the medical sense—they are just getting old. The problem is the failure of the liaison committees to differentiate between elderly, confused, frail people who can be coped with in the community and low-key nursing day centres, and those who need geriatric services. It is this squabbling and the failure to establish definitions that have inhibited progress in getting not only the assessment but the financing right, and getting on with the job of making the provisions right.
We have only one problem in our part of the world. Much of that problem can be laid fairly and squarely at the door of Socialism. There is a failure on the part of many people to be personally responsible for their elderly people. Governments can reflect the compassion of a society, but it is difficult for Governments to try to teach people compassion. One of the dreadful problems that we face is that elderly relatives who have been transferred from their homes or those of their relatives into hospital find that when they are out of what might be called the geriatric term, have been rehabilitated back into the community and are sent back home, they are rejected by their families.
Part of the burden on the social services arises from the failure of people to take responsibility for their elderly relatives. I urge the joint liaison committees to look more closely into the counselling of relatives. There is an urgent necessity to fund this movement. The movers of the motion did not talk about personal responsibility. One of

the Government's policies in every subject has been to make people aware of that and to move us back towards it. In supporting the Government we shall be well on the way to doing that.

Mr. David Alton: The last time that I heard the Minister for Health speak was three weeks ago in the Cambridge Union, when we were opposing each other in a debate on whether the proliferation of parties in British politics was a good or a bad thing. I was arguing that it would be a good thing and on that occasion I am glad to say that we won the debate. I expect that tonight the vote may go differently.

Mr. John Patten: I am afraid so.

Mr. Alton: The Under-Secretary took part in the Adjournment debate last night at which I was present. He will know that that is regularly the case, unfortunately, in the House.
The debate has been a good example of two parties such as the Social Democratic and Liberal parties airing an issue that might not otherwise be debated during the mainstream time of Parliament. The contributions this evening from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and from Conservative Members demonstrate that this is an issue upon which people feel strongly, across the Chamber, and have important contributions to make.
Many of us come from what might be called the cod liver oil and orange juice generation, and we have watched with a great deal of worry as we have seen the frontiers of the welfare state being rolled back. In particular, it has become a great crusade to talk in terms similar to those in which the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) spoke, when she talked about the need for the individual to assert himself and take responsibility. No alliance Member would disagree with that argument, but we also believe that a safety net should be provided. The hon. Lady will not be surprised, as other hon. Members will not be, at heirs of a legacy that goes back to David Lloyd George, William Beveridge and Keynes offering a motion such as this.
We offer this motion in a constructive way. Much of the rhetoric has come from the Government — not necessarily from the Minister, but from many of his colleagues—is not a rhetoric that does any good to the social services, the Health Service or the welfare state. We believe that it stems from a basic philosophy which expects the individual to survive where might and greed are important and where vulnerability is not believed to be at all important.
It is worth looking at the writings of that great Tory party guru, Milton Friedman, to see where the party gets much of its thinking. He said:
Indigence was simply the punishment meted out to the improvident by their own lack of industry and efficiency. Far from being a blessed state, poverty was the obvious consequence of sloth and sinfulness".
The concept that sloth and sinfulness should be the reason why people are poor or vulnerable defeats me. It is based on the argument that one must blame the victim, and that the victim is responsible for the circumstances in which he lives.
I referred a moment ago to Sir William Beveridge. In his maiden speech in the House in 1944, he said:
I suggest that our aim should be that every British citizen, who works while he can and contributes while he is working and


earning, should be assured of an old age without want, without dependence on the young, and without the need for charity or assistance".—[Official Report, 3 November 1944; Vol. 404, c. 1127.]
That is something for which Liberals will go on arguing in this Chamber all these years later.
One can go back even further than that, to the time of David Lloyd George who, in 1909, said:
I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time when poverty and wretchedness and human degradation which always follow in its camp will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests".
For Liberals, 70 years later, it is profoundly disturbing that the rhetoric of Thatcherism has all but become the orthodoxy of political language. Butskellite corporatism has been replaced by a meaner and more selfish approach which all too readily blames the victim. That approach is again exemplified by Friedman, who warned that the major evil is the
effect [of welfare programmes] on the fabric of our society. They weaken the family, reduce the incentive to work, save and innovate; reduce the accumulation of capital and limit our freedom.
Life may look like that from the Downing street bunker, but for those of us who are outside it, that theory appears to be devoid of humanity and sanity. Exhortations to privatise, to self-help, for family life, for the return of women to their homes, for Victorian virtue, for saving, for rationalisation and for efficiency, are all important, but they are no substitute for the care that the vulnerable in our community have a right to expect.

Mr. Robert Parry: rose——

Mr. Alton: I shall give way in a moment.
Malcolm Dean, writing in The Guardian, put it well when he described this Administration as
a Government which does not feel guilty about the poor.
David Donnison, as chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, concluded that
The new team has shed the burden of social conscience.

Mr. Parry: Is not the hon. Gentleman adopting the usual Liberal attitude of playing both sides against the middle? He referred to David Lloyd George, but he would be more up to date if he referred to Sir Trevor Jones, who was leader of the Liberal party in Liverpool for many years. Under Liberal leadership, social services, the sick, the disabled and home helps in Liverpool were attacked. Now that a Labour-controlled council is in power the Liberals are playing the same game by attacking the Labour party for trying to put right the mess in which the Liberals and Tories left us.

Mr. Alton: I shall refer to home helps later. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) is wrong when he suggests that the Liverpool city council is acting differently from any other council in the country. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made the point earlier—I use this point to refute what the hon. Member for Riverside has just said—that every single council in the country has had its funding reduced. One cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. No Liberal would blame the present Government or any other Government for Britain's economic malaise, but we believe that the Government stand condemned for their failure to stand up for those most in need and for their stigmatisation of dependency. The Government boasted earlier that

personal social services had not been cut, but, as I argued yesterday and have argued before, demographic changes mean that there are new challenges and that resources must increase and not just stand still. Many local authority cuts are rational decisions, given the reduced expenditure available to them. Boarding out for children and day care services for the mentally ill have been improved. There have been improved services, but that is because those were sensible economic and, some would argue, socially sensible decisions to take. That does not make them bad, but at the same time they are determined by the financial restraints placed on local authorities. It is easy to dispose of home care helps, because often those people are employed for short periods. Many local authorities have made massive reductions in home care helps.
The situation in the city of Liverpool is highly unsatisfactory. Last year Liverpool had 1,900 clients and only 144 home helps to meet that need. The DHSS guidelines say that it should have 967 home helps. I have argued in the past that it is madness to have more than 67,000 people there being paid over £5,500 a year to stay in the dole queue when work remains to be done. In other words, that relates a need in the community to people available to do it. We should be improving our home help service, taking demographic changes into account and ensuring that meals on wheels and other important facilities for the elderly are provided.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an absolute disgrace for a city the size of Liverpool, with about 400,000 people, to have only 144 home helps? Will he further agree that that has been due to the policy of the local authority? Birmingham, only twice the size, has about 2,000 home helps.

Mr. Alton: A city which has lost over £100 million in rate support grant as the result of Government cuts in the last four years must make savings and cannot meet all its needs. We are speaking of a city which has one in four of its population over the retirement age, with the fastest growing group the over-80s. That is clearly an argument for increased provision, but local authorities cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
It is a problem facing not only the city of Liverpool. The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. That organisation estimates that as a result of cuts in expenditure, 7,000 places will be lost in old people's homes, 40,000 fewer people will have home help visits, 50,000 fewer meals will be delivered and 60,000 teaching jobs, and a further 40,000 non-teaching jobs will be slashed.
Those figures come not just from think tank reports or reports leaked to The Guardian. We have seen the reality of Conservative policies in the last four years. The unified housing benefit resulted in 2 million vulnerable people being made an average of 75p a week worse off, and 200,000 other people, according to SHAC, are not claiming benefits to which they are entitled. That is a direct result of Government policies.
The challenge is enormous. It is estimated that there are today 7 million people dependent on supplementary benefit; that for every 100 people on the poverty line in 1979 there are now 160; that the number of claimants of working age on supplementary benefit has doubled; and that by 1984 there will be almost 2 million children on


benefit. The same is true of the elderly. It is estimated that by the year 2001 the number of people aged over 75 will have risen by about 493,000 and that the number aged over 85 will have increased by about 288,000. That means a greater need for more sheltered accommodation, more bungalows for the elderly and greater protection for the elderly.
I urge the Government to consider implementing the terms of the Victims of Violent Crimes Bill that I introduced two years ago. That would ensure that elderly people were provided with alarms, telephones and porterage systems and that more assistance was given to the establishment in the community of victim support schemes. It cannot be right that there should be only 150 voluntary victim support schemes throughout the country. There should be many more. At present they are receiving the pittance of £50,000 a year from the Government. When elderly people become the victims of violent crime, the DHSS gives them only £2 a day on which to live, yet many of them have lost the electricity and gas money and even money for food. That is a practical way in which the community, and especially the Government, can respond.
In his opening remarks the Minister made an important statement about child care. I welcome that statement, which corresponded closely to a child care measure which I introduced 18 months ago. Many of the announcements that he made tonight are much needed because of the Kafkaesque cycle where social workers have sat as judge and jury, defence and prosecution when dealing with their clients. I welcome what the Minister said tonight but, as he accepted, it does not go all the way. There is still scope for the introduction of measures such as family courts and I hope that in the longer term the rights of the individual child will matter just as much as those of the parent. It is about time that the balance between the power of the social worker and the individual was redressed.
To Liberals, the community and its needs are a starting point. We see its demands as a stimulating challenge. That is why we and our hon. Friends in the Social Democratic party who have tabled the motion tonight commend it to the House.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I hope that hon. Members will understand if I do not pick up every point that has been made in the debate. The Minister began by making great play of the money that has been spent by local authorities in the past five years. He talked about a growth of 12·7 per cent. In fact, the money that has been put into social services is not a Government but a local government miracle. Despite Government efforts to cut back on expenditure, local authorities have managed to keep pace with needs, and that is what is amazing. Despite the ravages imposed by the Government, many local authorities have developed social services in the ways in which I and my hon. Friends would wish.
It is not only demographic matters which require the money spent on social services to be increased; it is also such things as the demands of new legislation, and that has not been mentioned tonight. That inevitably puts new demands on local authorities which the Government never seem to recognise by making resources available to them. Above all, unemployment is the engine which increases the need for expenditure on social services. The

correlation between the needs of the social services and unemployment has been demonstrated time and again. I hope that Conservative Members appreciate that while they have policies which increase unemployment to such an amazingly high level, the needs of the social services will inevitably increase.
It is easy to talk about the global figures and say that in so many million pounds there must be waste to cut out. Everybody appreciates that it is easy to say that and perhaps, here and there, there is. However, one can only do so for so long. There is bound to be a point at which it cannot be done. To say that there are administrative savings to be made is to do a great disservice to the many people who are underpinning the social workers—the case workers and those who go out into the streets. They are doing a great deal of financial and administrative work in the local authorities. It is a juggling of resources that can only go on for so long.
It is interesting to quote the Select Committee on Social Services which reported in July 1982. Despite what the Minister said, the Committee found:
Day care places have fallen in proportion to the population over 75 since 1979–80, as have the number of hours of home help contact for that population. Between 1975–76 and 1980–81, home help hours of service to those over 75 failed by 8 per cent. to keep pace with the growing numbers of elderly, and meals served to those over 75 failed by 11·6 per cent.
Those figures were not produced by some local authority or its association which Conservative Members disparage but by a House of Commons Select Committee.
The Minister talked about pump priming and the new money being produced. It is fine to develop pump priming but often in doing so there is insufficient time to see where the money will come from to sustain it. Voluntary bodies have been put under immense pressure by being given finance only from year to year. Many people will not come into pump priming exercises and experimental schemes when there is no prospect of employemt for longer than one year. That applies, for example, to Opportunities for Vounteering — a splendid scheme but, unfortunately, employment is guaranteed for only 12 months at a time. When I was working in the voluntary sector I found it difficult to expect people to enter employment when there is no greater guarantee.
The Minister talked about the Government's new ideas and new money. Looking at the global figures for local government it seems that much more has been taken away. However, there is another problem that the Minister must face; that is that, in many experiments—many of the good schemes that the voluntary sector has taken on—there is a great bulge of time expiry. Unless the Government pick up the point that many schemes will now fail if they do not provide more resources for them, many good schemes will fail to continue. The great majority of the schemes are not being evaluated and there is no suggestion of any possibility of continuing schemes that have proved to be successful. The Government's figures are therefore not always what they seem, because many schemes will fail and disappear in the very near future.
The Government have put great pressure on the local authorities and the voluntary bodies to embark on more capital projects, without recognising that there are revenue implications in every case. Great problems will face a voluntary body that takes on a capital scheme of any kind without the provision of revenue expenditure to underpin it. I could give a number of examples, taken from around the country, of cases in which a voluntary body has taken


on a scheme under the encouragement of the Government but because of such under-funding, is having great difficulty in continuing it.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) is not in his place. His views today were much more muted than they were on the last occasion I heard him speak, when we shared a platform before the election. The hon. Gentleman then made most trenchant criticisms of the Government. It is astonishing now to realise what changes were wrought by 9 June, and to hear the hon. Member giving the Government so much support. I remember that the hon. Gentleman made tremendous criticisms of the imposition of VAT on voluntary bodies. I would have expected him to make that point today.
I welcomed and appreciated the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), particularly his comments on the choice of subject. In view of those comments, it may be churlish to criticise the hon. Gentleman. However, some of his colleagues, particularly in the local authorities, do not seem to believe as strongly as he does in community care. Many people in the voluntary bodies believe that many Labour-controlled local authorities prefer to believe that if something is worth doing, the state must do it. One cannot have it both ways. If they believe in community care—if they believe in the place of the voluntary sector in society—those local authorities must encourage the voluntary bodies to pick up some of the schemes that are most appropriate to them.
One phrase used by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) gave away much of her case. She said that when local government is under pressure, we look to the voluntary bodies. That is not the spirit in which we should encourage the partnership between the statutory and the voluntary sectors. One should not turn to the voluntary sector in an escapist fashion when there are financial pressures. It was unfair of the hon. Lady to compare the services provided by the voluntary sector with apparently comparable services in the statutory sector. Very often, and for very good reasons, the voluntary sector is not coping with those in the greatest need in any one category. For example. a considerable amount of good work in sheltered housing is done by the voluntary bodies. However, I know from my own experience in Leeds that, by and large, they do not take in people in the same depths of need as do the statutory services. Inevitably, therefore, the statutory services in that sector will have greater costs to meet.
The hon. Lady then mentioned personal responsibility. No one would doubt that personal responsibility is crucial, but many people are taking on burdens of responsibility that they cannot possibly cope with. At a conference, I heard a speaker from the Association of Carers, which is trying to find ways of giving people respite care —giving them some time off from caring. She told us of someone who was caring for a very elderly parent, who said that she was frightened of respite care. She was terrified of having her door opened to the world, and of not wanting to go back in after a period of respite care. It is a question of enabling people to carry on with day-to-day caring. We should not just tell them that it is their personal responsibility. There are costs involved in that, which local authorities and the Government must take on.
No one would dispute that joint financing is important. The increased flexibility that the Government have provided is most valuable and is to be welcomed. However, the Government must accept that local

authorities will not want to avail themselves of such flexibility if their general expenditure is to be attacked through rate penalties. The authority will not be able to cope without making cuts elsewhere. It is ridiculous that a local authority social services department should have to decide, for example, between not taking up more home help places and continuing previous jointly financed projects.
I hope that the debate has highlighted the importance of linkages. There are linkages between social security provision and the NHS, and between the social services and the NHS. Unless the debate concentrates on those areas, they will be hidden behind the smokescreen of the total cuts imposed. For example, the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has Thornton View hospital in his constituency. Indeed, it was mentioned the other day in the debate on the NHS cuts. An interesting fact about that hospital is that Bradford social services department is on the same site. Some years ago Bradford social services department asked about the future of that hospital, and were told that it was assured. Consequently, the local authority invested considerable funds. However, having expended considerable resources, the authority is now faced with a threat to the hospital. The linkage between the NHS and the social services has not been maintained and as a result all three political leaders on the local authority have written to the Minister saying that they want Thornton View to remain open and quoting their input into that scheme.
The Government do not seem to understand what it means to draw together the different forces within the community. There are tremendous strengths in the community and there is tremendous power at a neighbourhood level. Unfortunately, the Government's divisive policy in so many different spheres undermines that strength and prevents it from being liberated. For example, the stigma attached to those on unemployment benefit means that they feel unable to claim the sums due to them, because they are made to feel that they are scroungers. After all, attitudes are just as important as reality.
I was struck by an article that appeared in today's edition of The Times and which was written by Sir William Rees-Mogg. — [Interruption.] I would not have thought that he was a hostile witness. He said:
All wisdom about human affairs depends on humility, sympathy, and the search for general rules.
There is very little humility or sympathy on the Government's side. The search for general rules has become a desire to dominate from the centre. Time and again the Government hide behind global figures. They give us all the global figures, but they will not respond—as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said—to the point that what is happening at the grass roots level bears no relation at all to those figures. If there is so much money available and so much growth, why do local authorities have to agonise about whether to close wards or cut the numbers of home helps? It just does not add up. I hope that the House will reject the amendment and support the motion.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): I have only 16 minutes in which to attempt to reply to the debate. That is rather different from the situation in which I found myself last


night following the debate on health care in the Liverpool region. I then had two and three quarter hours in which to conclude the Adjournment debate. I thought for one ghastly moment, when warfare was breaking out between the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), that I was back in the middle of the nightmarish two and a half hours which I faced last night.
The debate has been most interesting and the Government are grateful to the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party for tabling the motion, but I am less grateful and very surprised at the terms in which it is expressed. The motion, is not redolent of the reasonable and reasoned public face which the alliance likes to put before the electorate. Instead, it is redolent with words of condemnation of what the Government are doing. The motion might well have been written by that late lamented-figure the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who was until recently the Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition. It is within the lingua franca— [HON. MEMBERS: "Bring her back!"] I agree. We should bring her back.
There was a weak display of statistical expertise by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Following the fashion set by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), he wandered out of the Chamber but has now just returned to hear my strictures. We used to have a noisy debate when the hon. Lady for Crewe and Nantwich was present. We miss her very much. We are obviously going to have a statistical time in future.
I suggest that the hon. Member for Oldham, West considers the implications of the statistics that he uses. The hon. Gentleman suggested that one of the reasons why expenditure on the personal social services had increased was that unit costs were rising. After my intervention—to which he gave way, but I do not intend to allow him to interrupt me because I do not have sufficient time—the hon. Gentleman said that that was because of a 19 per cent. increase in the cost of residential homes, as though an immutable Meacherite law decreed that unit costs rise exponentially.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am sorry to interrupt the Minister when he is in mid-flow, but I would be helped, as would the House and the Official Report, if he would try to avoid turning his back on the chair.

Mr. Patten: I am extremely sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for turning my back on you. I meant no personal disrespect at all. I thought that I was about to be ticked off for using the word "Meacherite". I am relieved that I am not to be pulled up by yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for using that word.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West when referring to the 19 per cent. increase, suggested that that proved that we needed more expenditure in the personal social services but he did not stop to think for one moment whether the increase in public expenditure was necessary or whether good management might improve the position.
The terms of blanket condemnation in which the motion has been written are disappointing and uncharacteristic of the alliance generally and of its public face.
I was equally disappointed, I am afraid, in what was otherwise an excellent and fluent speech by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, in the way in which he condemned almost everything that the Government had done. The one exception was a brief and halting sentence about the increased expenditure on voluntary sector funding in this country. Tomorrow's Official Report will show that what I have said is correct. That, too, is most disappointing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not regard it as impertinent if I commend to him the quaint old-fashioned habit of staying in the Chamber to hear the rest of the debate after making one's own speech. I was sorry that he saw fit to leave so soon after the end of his contribution, not returning until 9.25 pm. Apart from anything else, he missed a number of charming compliments on the excellence of his speech. It would certainly have been agreeable if he had listened to the rest of the debate.
In many ways, the most constructive speech today was that of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). Unfortunately, he is not in his place to hear my compliments. Although he strongly criticised a number of aspects of Government social policy he made a thoughtful and balanced contribution with some particularly interesting suggestions as to ways in which we might improve neighbourhood care in this country.
A similarly constructive approach characterised the interesting but brief speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), who wound up the debate for the alliance. Leeds must be an interesting place to live in, with Balliol and bar-room brawling in Leeds, East and J. B. Priestley pragmatism in Leeds, West—a rather undistinguished sting in the tail that the hon. Gentleman will regret having read on to the record.
Extremely constructive also was—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on—you have only 10 minutes."] I know that the Opposition are enjoying my speech and would like me to go on for longer. In the time remaining I intend to deal with a number of aspects entirely untouched by the alliance speeches — with the exception, again, of the hon. Member for Leeds, West, who at least mentioned the carers. It is unfortunate that the Opposition have shown no care for the carers who give so much help to society. That is in contrast with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who picked out this important area for attention. Far from deserving the blanket condemnation that we have received from the Opposition, the Government have done a great deal in this area. The support needed for carers varies widely. The Department's social work service has undertaken an important and widely praised development work project to give extra help to the carers who do so much to help the social services. That is a most important aspect.
I draw the attention of alliance Members to some of the positive and entirely innovatory achievements that the Government have managed in the past two or three years. The number of innovations in relation not just to carers but across the board that have been announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considerable. Behind many of those innovations has been the fertile brain and political imagination of the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), who is responsible for the disabled and has contributed a great deal to the development of the social services in this country in recent years.
I cite just one example of the advances that have been made. The Department has been giving support to the central costs of the national Council for Carers of Elderly Dependants. It has been giving financial aid to the Association of Carers specifically to give help in this area. We have recently added to the list of organisations. It is important to go into detail here, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West has claimed that we are fond of talking in global figures but do not know what it is like at the grass roots. We have recently given a grant of £50,000 spread over two years to support a brand new grassroots organisation concerned with helping the carers to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South referred in his admirable speech—an organisation called Contact-a-Family. We also support organisations such as MENCAP and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship which undertake detailed grassroots work in important areas.
In view of the contribution made by the Government to the voluntary sector and to alternative ways of coping with need, I thought it a bit much that the alliance's somewhat overdramatically written motion did not recognise any of the great developments that the Government have achieved. A number of areas of co-operation underlie our ever-deepening relationship with the voluntary sector. It is a great shame that the alliance, which sets such store on being fair and even-handed, chose not to recognise those facts today. Do alliance Members decry the fact that the volume of resources given to voluntary organisations has increased by 11 per cent. since last year? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Do they decry the fact that the overall financial support to the voluntary sector, excluding that from local authorities, has increased to £25 million this year from £15 million last year?
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Leeds, West, in the thoughtful part of his speech, and before the unfortunate sting in the tail—the sting that turned round and stung him—commend the scheme for opportunities for volunteering. That has been a great success, particularly in the local framework at the. grassroots. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health talked about our global achievements because we are proud of them. Everything at national level is mirrored locally at the grassroots, where much social care is carried out by voluntary organisations, statutory organisations and our excellent social workers.
It is unfortunate that sometimes the tabloid newspapers gratuitously attack the social work profession, which does so much good. Are alliance Members not content, for example, with the way in which the Government have ensured better communications with the voluntary sector by giving them places on the joint consultative committees, which plan the funding made available through the joint funding process? It strikes me as unreasonable and irrational of the alliance to ignore the fact that during the Government's years of office real resources, taking account of the rise in prices, devoted to joint finance have increased by 50 per cent. That is one of the Government's major achievements in social services and one of which the Minister for Health is rightly proud.
The Government have introduced special detailed initiatives in intermediate treatment, and in day care for the under-fives. They have made more advances than any Government since the second world war. Pilot projects for psychogeriatrics are springing up all over the country, which are at the feet of the Government to put into action. The Government have changed the law relating to

voluntary and private homes to integrate them more into the social provision framework. We owe much to voluntary homes. It is important to get mentally handicapped children out of hospital. All those introductions, both in terms of money and the detailed grassroots provision, are part and parcel of the Government's aim to support dependent people and children in the community. I hope that alliance Members will support that, rather than decry it in the overall blanket condemnation in their motion on the Order Paper.
The Conservative party and the Conservative Government have taken the concept of care in the community, provided resources for it and made it a living phenomenon and not merely the dream of social workers and social theorists. That is one of the Government's great achievements since 1979. For that reason, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject this absurd, irrelevant and most un-alliance-like motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:-

The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 164.

Division No. 65]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Meacher, Michael


Ashdown, Paddy
Meadowcroft, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Nellist, David


Bruce, Malcolm
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Parry, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Penhaligon, David


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pike, Peter


Fisher, Mark
Prescott, John


Freud, Clement
Robertson, George


Golding, John
Rogers, Allan


Haynes, Frank
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Howells, Geraint
Sheerman, Barry


Hoyle, Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Stott, Roger


Johnston, Russell
Wainwright, R.


Kennedy, Charles
Wallace, James


Kirkwood, Archibald
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Loyden, Edward
Wareing, Robert


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Maclennan, Robert



McWilliam, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Madden, Max
Mr. A. J. Beith and Mr. John Cartwright.


Marek, Dr John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Coombs, Simon


Amess, David
Cope, John


Ashby, David
Couchman, James


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Dicks, T.


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baldry, Anthony
Dover, Denshore


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Robert


Bellingham, Henry
Eggar, Tim


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Evennett, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Bottomley, Peter
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brinton, Tim
Forth, Eric


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bruinvels, Peter
Fox, Marcus


Buck, Sir Antony
Franks, Cecil


Bulmer, Esmond
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butcher, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Chope, Christopher
Grylls, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Harris, David






Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hayward, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Heddle, John
Rathbone, Tim


Hirst, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Howard, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ryder, Richard


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Jackson, Robert
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luce, Richard
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lyell, Nicholas
Speed, Keith


McCrindle, Robert
Speller, Tony


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Spencer, D.


Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David John.
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Major, John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Malone, Gerald
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Maples, John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Marlow, Antony
Thome, Neil (Ilford S)


Mather, Carol
Thurnham, Peter


Maude, Francis
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tracey, Richard


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mellor, David
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Merchant, Piers
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Viggers, Peter


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Waddington, David


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moate, Roger
Walden, George


Moore, John
Waller, Gary


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Warren, Kenneth


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Watson, John


Murphy, Christopher
Watts, John


Neale, Gerrard
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Newton, Tony
Wheeler, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry


Normanton, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas


Norris, Steven
Wolfson, Mark


Onslow, Cranley
Wood, Timothy


Oppenheim, Philip
Woodcock, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Page, John (Harrow W)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)



Patten, John (Oxford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Donald Thompson and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Powley, John



Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 40.

Division No. 66]
[10.10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Amess, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brinton, Tim


Baldry, Anthony
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Batiste, Spencer
Bruinvels, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Buck, Sir Antony





Bulmer, Esmond
Murphy, Christopher


Butcher, John
Neale, Gerrard


Butterfill, John
Newton, Tony


Chope, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Normanton, Tom


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Norris, Steven


Coombs, Simon
Onslow, Cranley


Cope, John
Oppenheim, Philip


Couchman, James
Ottaway, Richard


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Page, John (Harrow W)


Dicks, T.
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Dorrell, Stephen
Patten, John (Oxford)


Dover, Denshore
Powell, William (Corby)


Dunn, Robert
Powley, John


Eggar, Tim
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Evennett, David
Proctor, K. Harvey


Eyre, Reginald
Raffan, Keith


Fallon, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Fookes, Miss Janet
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Forth, Eric
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Rowe, Andrew


Fox, Marcus
Ryder, Richard


Franks, Cecil
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Goodlad, Alastair
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Grylls, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Harris, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hayward, Robert
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Heddle, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hirst, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Speed, Keith


Howard, Michael
Spencer, D.


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Stern, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Jackson, Robert
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Key, Robert
Stradling Thomas, J.


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lilley, Peter
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Lord, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Luce, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lyell, Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


McCrindle, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


McCurley, Mrs Anna
van Straubenzee, SirW.


MacGregor, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Viggers, Peter


Maclean, David John.
Waddington, David


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Major, John
Walden, George


Malins, Humfrey
Waller, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Maples, John
Warren, Kenneth


Marlow, Antony
Watson, John


Mather, Carol
Watts, John


Maude, Francis
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wheeler, John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry


Mellor, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Merchant, Piers
Wolfson, Mark


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wood, Timothy


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Woodcock, Michael


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Yeo, Tim


Moate, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Moore, John



Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Mr. Donald Thompson and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)



Moynihan, Hon C.





NOES


Alton, David
Bruce, Malcolm


Ashdown, Paddy
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Beith, A. J.
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)






Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Haynes, Frank
Parry, Robert


Howells, Geraint
Penhaligon, David


Hoyle, Douglas
Robertson, George


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rogers, Allan


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Johnston, Russell
Sheerman, Barry


Kennedy, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Edward
Steel, Rt Hon David


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stott, Rogor


Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, James


McWilliam, John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Madden, Max
Wareing, Robert


Marek, Dr John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mayhew, Sir Patrick



Meacher, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Meadowcroft, Michael
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. John Cartwright.


Nellist, David

Question acordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognising the constraints imposed by the needs of the national economy, applauds the Government's initiative in promoting new policies for personal social services as set out in "Care in the Community" including new measures to ensure that more of the elderly, mentally ill and mentally handicapped are enabled to be cared for a: or near their own homes rather than in institutions; welcomes the Government's action in improving and extending the Joint Finance Scheme, improving co-operation between statutory services and voluntary groups and increasing financial support for the voluntary sector; and looks forward to a continuing steady improvement in the level and quality of support available to those in need in the community.

Petitions

Contraception (Under-age Girls)

Mr. William Shelton: I beg leave to present to the House a petition signed by a number of my constituents, which represents the view of many more who did not have the opportunity to sign it.
The petition states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Hon. Members of the House of Commons should bear in mind, that according to Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "The Family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by Society and the State." We ask that they should therefore urge the Home Secretary that he should recommend to the House that parents must be given statutory rights to be consulted before any contraceptive drugs or devices be given to their daughters whilst they are under 16: thus enabling parents to take whatever actions they think necessary to protect their daughters from early and unlawful sexual relationships, and the criminal actions of the males involved.
I strongly support the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Robert Jackson: I beg leave to present a petition from a number of my constituents on the same subject as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton.) They draw attention to the part of the petition which states:
Girls need special protection, as the future mothers in society, and must be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means to enable them to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I beg leave to present a petition similar to those presented by the hon. Members for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) and for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), on behalf of my constituent Mrs. N. M. M. Ashcroft of 18, Freshfields Drive, Longbarn, Padgate, Warrington, and 2,585 petitioners.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg leave to' present a petition from the residents of Alnwick and Amble on the same subject as the petitions presented by the hon. Members for Streatham (Mr. Shelton), for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and for Warrington, North (Mr.Hoyle) — contraceptive advice and abortions for girls under 16.
Although not in identical terms, it prays
that your Honourable House will legislate to give parents or legal guardians the statutory right to be informed of and give consent to all medication for their children under 16 years of age.
I welcome the fact that yesterday the Government undertook to reconsider this matter. I trust they will recognise that the root of the petition lies in the deep concern that parental responsibility and guidance should be seen to have its proper place in helping girls under 16 who find themselves in difficulty. I hope the Government will understand that parental responsibility is of the utmost importance and, therefore, take account of the serious concern that has been expressed.

To lie upon the Table.

Travelling People

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Robert Key: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting my subject for the Adjournment debate, and to the House for giving me the opportunity to comment on the Government's consultative paper on the accommodation needs of long-distance and regional travellers, particularly with regard to my constituency of Salisbury. The problem is a national one, and many hon. Members have first-hand knowledge of the disturbance caused to their constituents by travellers and the problems that these members of our society pose to our local authority and law enforcement agencies.
In the consultation paper of February 1982, the Department of the Environment said that it was of increasing concern to the Government that something should be done to alleviate the current curcumstances in which sudden, often large-scale, incursions of long-distance and regional travellers cause distress to nearby house dwellers and residents and exceptional expense to local authorities and increases the isolation of travellers and the disregard they feel towards society in general.
The research that has so far been done concentrates on the groups of Irish gipsies who migrated here during the 1950s and 1960s when economic conditions in Ireland were relatively poor. Often, these easily recognisable groups are at odds with their English gipsy counterparts. There is no doubt that over the centuries gipsies in Europe have been unjustifiably and sometimes cruelly persecuted, and at least within these islands we have begun to come to terms with this minority group, and they with us.
Where the consultative paper is less useful is in its consideration of other travellers who are not usually classified as traditional gipsies. However, the paper ends by saying that if a solution is to be found to this most pressing problem action will be needed upon the following lines. It will be necessary to identify and provide stopping places or transit sites that may include seasonal car parks or wasteland that is temporarily out of use. Encouragement and assistance should be given to travellers purchasing and maintaining sites for their own use and there should be a fostering of more co-operation and understanding among travellers, local authorities and the public. At the moment, mutual suspicion prevails. That is certainly our local evidence in Wiltshire.
When I wrote asking for this debate I was in the happy position of knowing that the community in south Wiltshire was of one mind on this issue and that I had the strong support of other hon. Members in raising this matter tonight. I particularly mention the support from the Bishop of Salisbury's director of the diocesan council for social responsibility, and, I am pleased to to be able to say, the support of the local branch of the Post Office Engineering Union.
We are facing a new phenomenon that needs new thinking. For ten years, the people of Salisbury lived with squatters in the ancient drove roads near the city, who have occupied the land illegally, but generally peacefully, and who have invited the title of "new age gipsies". We have also had to live with the Stonehenge festival, which takes

place each year around the solstice and now attracts 30,000 people who are illegally squatting on land owned by the National Trust.
Over the years, all the authorities involved have shown considerable good will and have bent over backwards to accommodate the wishes of those who want to drop out of 20th century life. I pay a tribute to the patience and professionalism of successive Ministers at the Department of the Environment and the Home Office, to Wiltshire county council and Salisbury district council, and, above all, to the patience of the Wiltshire constabulary.
All the statutory authorities have pursued this issue to the limit, but since August, all the patient good work and trust that have been built up have been destroyed by a sudden influx of new squatters. At least 200 nomads are squatting illegally on private land outside Salisbury. They claim that there may be 1,000 of them by Christmas. Their lawlessness is self-confessed, as is their anarchy. Newspaper reports have claimed that they are armed with hand grenades, and they certainly possess shotguns. I must disclaim the words put into my mouth by the News of the World. I have no evidence of any terrorism contemplated by the people there. However, I have been physically threatened by them and an army helicopter is alleged to have been attacked.
Local residents are denied enjoyment of their ancient rights of way, farmers have been forced to abandon the crops in the fields, and timber is being cut from Forestry Commission plantations. The National Farmers Union has taken up the case of its members locally, and in a recent letter to me it claims that a number of sheep had been killed and that the police had advised the farmers to shift the livestock to the other end of the farms involved, and not to return them. The police have given whatever protection they can and have been in the area all day. When the trouble was at its height, they called at the farms every hour during darkness to protect the farmers, their families and livestock. The NFU alleged instances where the police had to back down when trying to administer the law because of the numbers confronting them. The local secretary of the NFU wrote that he would never have thought it possible for that to happen in England.
I want to quote a short extract from the transcript of a TV South "Coast to Coast" programme that was broadcast recently. The interviewer asked the squatters what they would do if someone came to try to move them out. The interviewer said:
What people are concerned about is that you would use the axes and the guns that they talk about and see.
Man A replied:
The first man, policeman, soldier or civilian, that ever walks through my space, and invades my privacy without asking my permission, I personally would get up and I would bust him right between the two eyes — and I would not worry about the consequences.
Even my defeated chief opponent at the general election spoke to me about the matter last Saturday. He said that, in his view, a pall of gloom now hung over the city as a result of the presence of these people in their encampment and in the city itself, where their abusive language and anti-social ways are felt by many to be threatening, and are certainly disturbing.
The county council has taken its responsibilities very seriously and has exercised its highway powers, but that merely moves the problem along the road, and does not in any way present a real solution. Even exercising highway powers could produce a pitched battle, which is


of course to be avoided. Indeed, the effect of exercising highway powers is to force the illegal squatters on to private land. There is no doubt that the owners of the farmland affected are doing a public service, both in their patience in allowing us time to sort out the problem, and because of the financial consequences of any High Court action which, in civilian law, would mean that the cost fell on them. If the law can protect the community only by resort to private pockets, the law should be changed.
It is the opinion of the Wiltshire county secretary and solicitor that the behaviour and nature of the people who are now unlawfully encamped, if press reports are to be believed, seem to be criminal. He says that they certainly do not appear to be gipsies "resorting to the area", nor involuntarily homeless people belonging to the area. The county secretary said that while further High Court orders and action could, in theory, move them on, that would merely move the problem to another place at considerable cost. He says that the police view is that they would probably have to summon substantial reinforcements to enable the under-sheriff to enforce a High Court order without being injured, and that the order might be made a mockery of by immediate return to occupation of the same stretch of highway, or standing by on close adjoining land, while the under-sheriff walked the empty highway. That, in fact, has now happened. Wiltshire county council has reservations about the effectiveness of further court proceedings, feeling that the solution does not lie with it to a problem which is part of a much wider national social problem.
The district council, too, has left no stone unturned. The chief executive of Salisbury district council has written that it might be appropriate to invoke planning legislation. However, he complained that that would be impracticable and very lengthy to apply. The reason is that the police have advised against the council making any contact with the people on the land, because the safety of the council's officers cannot be guaranteed. Acceptance of the police advice would prevent the service of enforcement notices—the first step in the institution of enforcement proceedings. Although the enforcement notice could be served on the landowner, the law does not require a person to hazard himself in order to comply with legal requirements.
The chief executive also points out that, quite apart from the special problem of enforcement arising from the police advice, the planning provisions on enforcement can be unsatisfactory because of the great length of time involved and because the occupiers—who, in any event, are trespassers — would have no compunction about moving to another site nearby. The whole procedure would then have to start again in relation to the new site.
Finally, the chief executive says that the occupiers of the adjoining caravan site and the residents of the nearby village of Coombe Bissett have suffered serious detriment because of the occupation of the land in question, and that they expect that the due process of law enforcement should operate, but the enforcement provisions are ineffective because the people concerned are determined to ignore or flout the law.
I was pleased to receive a letter on Monday from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. His good news was that the Government would shortly announce their conclusions on the need for changes in the law in this respect.
During the debate on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill on Monday of this week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office said:
The policing of this country is going through a period of rapid change. Every hon. Member who is in touch with his police force and police authority will confirm that. The police are responding in many different ways to public anxiety about the crime figures and to much more general changes in society. Recruitment is up, the quality of recruits is high, management and training are being reformed and modem equipment is being introduced.
However, every police officer worth his salt knows that these necessary changes will not fully succeed without the unwritten contract of mutual help and understanding between police and public".—[Official Report, 7 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 102.]
We know that there is no point in endangering the police in enforcing the law if the law will immediately be broken again. I have with some reluctance come to the conclusion that there may be a sensible case for the use of troops against armed lawbreakers. However, I am reassured that Wiltshire constabulary can cope with the problem in hand.
The people of Salisbury are asking whether the law can be enforced. If it cannot, why not? The law is a living thing and must surely change to met the changing needs of society. Every avenue that has been explored leads back to the door of the Government and I believe that changes in the law in this area are long overdue.
It is said that the criminal law is adequate as it stands. Some say that the law of trespass should be changed to make trespass on non-residential property a criminal offence. Some say that the law should be amended to create a category of public nuisance leading to the exclusion of people or a group of people from an area. The only thing that we know for sure is that in Wiltshire everything has been tried.
Above all, the rule of law must be seen to apply to all the people all the time. If the Government fail to act now, we will see an unwelcome increase in the trail of disorder and unhappiness spreading across the country from Haverfordwest and Brecon through Glastonbury to Stonehenge, Greenham Common, Norwich and Leicester, to Cambridgeshire, Sussex and Kent.
In their consultation paper, the Government have responded positively to the social problem which they know we face. We live in an open, tolerant and democratic society and neither the people of Salisbury nor the Government would wish to restrict the liberty of the individual to live his own life, so long as he does not intimidate the majority by conspiring in groups to flout the law and thereby impinge upon the freedom and rights of his neighbour and, indeed, of his children. We must not forget the children of those who are living this alternative life.
Last summer, at the Stonehenge free festival, we witnessed the exploitation of children in connection with drug trafficking and there was the death of a child. It is said that the parents among those who travel in this new way have a great regard for the well-being of their children, but we should not forget that we are signatories to the United Nations declaration on the rights of children, which says:
The child shall enjoy special protection, shall be given opportunities and facilities by law and by other means to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity.
Last summer, there were some 400 children at the Stonehenge free festival who, so I was told by those taking


part, had never been to school. How many children of the squatters around the country are being deprived of their birthright of education?
I urge the Government with all the authority at my command—with the authority of the people of Salisbury and south Wiltshire—to act on this matter with great urgency in the interests of the whole nation. Indeed, let it never be said that this Government, through lack of determination, presided over the rapid development of an alternative society, an alternative nation, when our declared objective, so frail yet so prized, must be one nation.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has given a graphic description of a state of affairs which is causing real and understandable distress to his constituents. He came to see me a few days ago and what he told me then and what he told the House tonight can leave no one in any doubt of the anxieties and difficulties caused by what has been happening in his constituency.

Mr. David Ashby: rose——

Mr. Hurd: I will not give way, because I must get on.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, this problem goes well beyond his constituency, and I am glad of the opportunity to give the House a summary of the information that we have about this collection of groups and to say what the police forces in different parts of the south and east of England have been doing to deal with the sort of problems that my hon. Friend mentioned.
First, two important general points that are not always as clearly understood as they should be. Under our system of policing, it is not for the Home Office or Ministers to direct chief officers of police how to carry out their duties as heads of the different police forces. That is for them and it is not a matter in which the Home Secretary can or does intervene.
Secondly, police forces and chief officers must administer the law as it stands and work out how best to do that in their areas in the light of their situations. There is one overriding principle, which my hon. Friend stated correctly: no citizen and no corner of the kingdom is outside the law or exempt from its enforcement. The timing and nature of that enforcement must depend on chief officers, who have a responsibility for preserving the Queen's peace as well as for dealing with infringements of the law. They cannot ignore either of those, and sometimes the responsibility to keep the peace will affect their tactical decisions on how to enforce the law.
The Peace Convoy is a title that covers a loose coalition of wandering groups which come together during the summer, retain separate identities and tend to disperse for the winter to separate camps. Their numbers fluctuate, but the total is probably about 600. They travel around the southern part of the country in a fleet of about 120 buses, lorries and other vehicles, many of which are dilapidated, to say the least.
Although these groups occasionally call themselves the Peace Convoy, I do not beleive that they have any genuine connection with any political cause. Their interests seem to be firmly focussed on the free festivals that are held

from time to time at various sites in southern England and Wales, one of the biggest of which—unfortunately for my hon. Friend — is that held in June at Stonehenge. There is no doubt that, although there are a great many people at the Stonehenge festival who do not belong to the Peace Convoy, the presence of the Peace Convoy at the festival this year enormously complicated and worsened the problems that in any case exist because of the festival.
At the end of June, the convoy left Wiltshire and travelled to Inglestone common, near Chipping Sodbury, where it stayed for three weeks. Avon and Somerset police, aware of reports that drug-taking was common at the encampment and of local concern about the activities of convoy members, adopted a strategy of containment. Many searches were made of people entering and leaving the site and a large number of these resulted in arrests for drug offences. Several unpleasant and potentially violent incidents occurred when police officers visited the site on various occasions to pursue inquiries about specific incidents. These incidents led the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset to judge that his policy on containment was correct and that any attempt to go further—for example, by maintaining a permanent police presence on the site—would produce the wrong result.
On 22 July of this year the convoy left Inglestone common and travelled to the Glastonbury green gathering, near Shepton Mallet, where, as at Stonehenge, the gathering attracted large crowds, among whom the members of the convoy were a minority. It passed off without serious incident and after the gathering the convoy, travelling in several different groups, moved to East Anglia for some weeks. A large group arrived in Norwich on 8 August and camped on land near the university of East Anglia.
The chief constable of Norfolk has told us that his decision to adopt a similar policy of containment was influenced by the need to assure the residents of Norwich that they would not be inconvenienced by the convoy's presence. During the convoy's two-week stay in Norwich, the most serious incident was one in which a parked car was stoned. Again, large numbers of searches were carried out on the periphery of the camp, a substantial proportion of which resulted in arrests for drug offences. After two weeks the university authorities obtained an injunction requiring the convoy to leave their land and the police planned a large operation to enforce the injunction, should that prove necessary, but the convoy left the site and moved a few miles to the village of Lyng. On 4 September the group left Norfolk altogether and, as my hon. Friend has told the House, is now back in Wiltshire.
I have no doubt, after what my hon. Friend has said, and from information from other hon. Friends and from the police, that the group is thoroughly undesirable and in some respects vicious. Members of the convoy have committed various criminal offences, including road traffic and drugs offences, which have been dealt with by the police as has been considered necessary.
My hon. Friend dealt to some extent with the problem of trespass. I would not quarrel with his analysis. Squatters on private farmland are committing the tort of trespass. In this country, trespass on land has traditionally been a matter for the civil rather than the criminal law. The main reason for that is that trespass in itself is not usually regarded as inherently deserving of criminal sanctions. If it is accompanied by violent or criminal acts, that is another matter, and there is a range of criminal offences


with which those responsible could be charged. The mere entry to or remaining on someone's land, however, constitutes a tort at civil law.

Mr. Ashby: The private landowner, in such circumstances, is forced to go to law and pay for the eviction of people who represent a public nuisance. That is the fundamental problem.

Mr. Hurd: I shall analyse the present situation before considering possible remedies.
As both my hon. Friends have said, someone who considers that a trespasser has interfered with his enjoyment of his property can seek a court order for possession. He does not have to prove damage, and the trifling nature of the trespass is no defence. To enforce a court order the bailiffs are entitled to remove the trespassers, by force if need be, and if any trouble is envisaged the bailiffs will normally seek the help of the police, who will naturally be concerned to avoid breaches of the peace and who are empowered to act to prevent them.
I hope that there is no risk of misunderstanding about the ability of the police to help in such situations. The decision on how to respond in a particular instance is an operational one for the police. I understand from the chief constable of Wiltshire that he would, as usual, be willing to help in the execution of an order in this case should he be so requested.
My hon. Friend referred to the review of the law of trespass which, as he rightly said, my right hon. Friend is now conducting. We shall shortly announce our conclusions, but, in order to avoid excessive expections, I must say that the review is confined to trespass on residential premises, because it arose from circumstances quite different from those that my hon. Friend has described. To make all trespass on private land a criminal offence would be a very difficult step. The concept of public nuisance has been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury and Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). I should like to consider that further. If either of them should care to develop their thoughts into a more concrete proposal, we would certainly consider it.
I come to the possible remedies in hand, such as mutual aid. Obviously, the Wiltshire police or other police forces in those circumstances may need speedy help from neighbouring police forces. That is available and can be obtained. As this problem runs across the south and east

of Britain and is not confined to any one police force area, it was quickly recognised among chief officers that co-operation between the police forces would be valuable. Standing arrangements have, therefore, been made for the sharing of information and intelligence that came to light from the convoy's activities. I believe that such cooperation will be increasingly important.
There are two other remedies in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill that I should like, with your permission Mr. Deputy Speaker, to mention as they are relevant to the argument. The first concerns the problem of people who have no discernible home address and who consequently may be in a position to flout the law. If they refuse to give a satisfactory address for service of a summons, it is impossible under the present law for offences that do not carry a power of arrest to be enforced. I think in particular of traffic offences, which are part —but only part—of the problem. Clause 22 of the police and Criminal Evidence Bill will provide that where a police officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any offence has been committed or attempted, he can arrest the relevant person if it appears to him that service of a summons would be impracticable or inappropriate. Similarly, as the stop and search power in the new Bill would cover prohibited articles such as offensive weapons as well as stolen goods right across the country, it could be of help to the police in enforcing the law against those people.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury knows, the Department of the Environment has particular responsibility for Stonehenge. That Department and officials from my Department are considering how they can best help those concerned in the local authorities and districts to cope with the problems caused by those festivals. In conclusion, I am not in the least complacent about this issue, or about the remedies that I have described. I am sure that we shall, naturally, hear more about this matter from my hon. Friends. It is not illegal to travel about this country in groups, and any effort to distinguish in law between pleasant and unpleasant groups would be very difficult. Any policy that simply has the effect of moving unpleasant groups from one place to another is of rather limited value. However, the Home Office will do whatever it can to encourage and advise the police forces that have to wrestle with this formidable problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o' clock.